When reforming a will or trust, the Surrogate’s Court “changes the language of the will [or trust instrument] itself by the addition or deletion of words in an attempt to conform [the instrument] to the decedent’s intent” (Matter of Stahle, NYLJ, Jan. 23, 2002, at 32 [Sur Ct, Onondaga County]).  Historically speaking, courts have been “hesitant to reform wills [and trusts,] unless the reformation effectuates the [testators and grantors’] intent” (Matter of Brill, NYLJ, Aug. 17, 2017, at 23 [Sur Ct, Bronx County]; Matter of Dousmanis, 190 AD3d 548, 549 [1st Dep’t 2021]).

However, when the reformation of a will or trust will result in a settlement of litigation, courts have been less hesitant to reform wills and trust instruments (Marilyn G. Ordover & Charles F. Gibbs, “Correcting Mistakes in Wills and Trusts”, NYLJ, Aug. 6, 1998, at 25).  This is because New York State has a strong public “policy encouraging family settlements” (Matter of Harburg, NYLJ, Aug. 12, 1997, at 26 [Sur Ct, New York County]).  Thus, in cases in which the interested parties have agreed to reform wills or trusts in order to achieve settlements, courts repeatedly have approved of the reformations to which the parties have stipulated (Matter of Schmitt, NYLJ, July 3, 2000, at 1 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]; Matter of Schwartz, NYLJ, Jan. 22, 1992, at 25 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]; Matter of Wilkie, NYLJ, Jan. 17, 1992, at 35 [Sur Ct, Westchester County]).      Continue Reading Creative Writing: Reforming Wills and Trusts to Achieve Settlements

In 2021 and 2022, I wrote about Surrogate’s Court decisions that addressed the admission of remotely witnessed wills to probate in New York State.  Since then, Surrogate’s Courts have issued at least two more decisions addressing the validity of remotely witnessed wills.  I now write to provide an update about the validity of remotely witnessed wills, having been involved in two cases that addressed the issue in 2023.
Continue Reading The Admission of Remotely Witnessed Wills to Probate in New York

From April 7, 2020 to June 25, 2021, New York Executive Order 202.14 authorized “the remote execution of wills” in New York State. Recently, in Matter of Holmgren, Queens County Surrogate Peter J. Kelly wrote a decision addressing the information that a self-proving affidavit must contain in order to prove the validity of a remotely executed will. Robert Harper writes about the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading SURROGATE’S COURT PROVIDES GUIDANCE ON PROVING THE VALIDITY OF A REMOTELY WITNESSED WILL

In April 2020, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.14, authorizing the remote witnessing of wills in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Earlier this week, Broome County Surrogate’s Court issued what appears to be the first reported New York decision addressing the admission to probate of a remotely witnessed will. Rob Harper discusses the decision in our latest post.
Continue Reading Admission of Remotely Witnessed Will to Probate

On March 19, 2020, Governor Cuomo issued Executive Order No. 202.7, which temporarily authorizes the remote notarization of documents in New York until April 18, 2020. Rob Harper provides a summary as to its contents in our latest post.
Continue Reading TO INFINITY AND BEYOND (OR AT LEAST APRIL 18, 2020): NEW YORK STATE LAW TEMPORARILY AUTHORIZES THE REMOTE NOTARIZATION OF DOCUMENTS

E-mail is seemingly omnipresent. Yet, the improvements to the technology associated with e-mail have far outpaced the development of the law concerning our e-mail accounts and the rights that our survivors may have to access those accounts upon our deaths. In this post, Robert Harper addresses New York’s recently-enacted digital assets legislation, as well as Surrogate Mella’s decision in Matter of Serrano, which appears to be the first reported case to apply that legislation.
Continue Reading You’ve Got (E-)Mail! Can Your Survivors Access It After Your Death?

In terrorem clauses generally provide that, where a beneficiary under a testamentary instrument unsuccessfully challenges the instrument’s validity, the beneficiary will forfeit any interests obtained under the instrument. Testators include in terrorem clauses in their wills in order to dissuade estate beneficiaries from taking action that is contrary to the testators’ wishes, as expressed in their testamentary instruments. While a paramount objective of the Surrogate’s Court is to act according to testators’ wishes, in terrorem clauses must be narrowly construed, and certain in terrorem provisions are violative of public policy. In our latest post, Rob Harper provides examples of in terrorem clauses that contravene public policy and, thus, are unenforceable under New York law.
Continue Reading In Terrorem Provisions That Violate Public Policy

Although summary judgment in a contested probate proceeding historically has been rare, the recent trend has been for Surrogate’s Courts to grant such relief with increasing frequency. Consistent with that recent trend, Surrogate’s Courts have granted summary judgment dismissing probate objections alleging that a testator lacked testamentary capacity, notwithstanding the testator’s diagnosis of dementia before executing the propounded will. Our latest entry, written by Robert M. Harper, discusses several cases in which a testator’s diagnosis of dementia prior to executing the propounded will was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact to withstand summary judgment dismissing a capacity objection.
Continue Reading Testamentary Capacity, Summary Judgment and a Testator’s Diagnosis of Dementia

As I wrote in a prior post, dated February 25, 2011, concerning the Estate of Dianne Edwards, the “slayer rule” articulated by the Court of Appeals in Riggs v. Palmer provides that “[n]o one shall be permitted to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found