Making Your Intentions Clear in a New York Will
Creating a last will and testament is not difficult. But it does require attention to detail. For example, if you decide to leave a specific item of property, particularly real estate, to a beneficiary, it is critical to precisely describe that property so as to leave no doubt as to your meaning. Many times when a legal dispute arises over a will, it is because family members have an honest disagreement over what the deceased actually meant in their will.
Siblings’ Argument Over Mother’s Lot Lands in Brooklyn Courtroom
A recent case from right here in Brooklyn provides a helpful example. In this case, Matter of Pearce, a woman died leaving two adult children, a daughter and son, who were also named co-executors of her estate. At the time of her death, the deceased owned a brownstone in Brooklyn, where she lived, together with an adjacent lot that contained a garden, walking path, and parking space.
The decedent’s will left her “primary residence at the time of my death” to her daughter. The remainder of the estate was then to be divided equally between the son and the daughter. While this might sound clear enough, the son actually filed an objection. He maintained that the mother’s “primary residence” only included the brownstone but not the adjacent lot. Under his interpretation of the will, the lot passed to the residuary estate, where he was an equal beneficiary.
Not surprisingly, the daughter did not see it that way. She maintained the lot was part of the mother’s primary residence and therefore passed solely to her under the will. A King’s County surrogate agreed. The son appealed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the surrogate’s decision.
As the Second Department explained in its opinion, there was a “latent ambiguity” in the will due to the mother using the phrase “primary residence” without clearly stating if she meant to include the adjacent lot. After all, the court noted that while the lot was physically connected to the lot, they remained “legally separate properties that are assigned to separate lot numbers for tax purposes.”
Under these circumstances, the Appellate Division said the surrogate properly looked at external or “extrinsic” evidence to determine the mother’s intentions. Here, the daughter presented evidence that the mother “made no distinction between the two” properties and treated them as her single primary residence. As such, the surrogate properly held that both properties passed to the daughter under the terms of the will.
Contact a Brooklyn Wills Lawyer
Making a will is about ensuring your property goes to the people you choose. A poorly drafted will with latent ambiguities can work against that goal and lead to costly and unnecessary litigation down the line. This is just one reason it is important to work with a qualified Brooklyn wills lawyer who can help ensure that your estate plan is clear and your intentions are unmistakable.
If you would like to speak with an attorney about your estate planning needs, contact Yeung & Associates, PLLC, today at 718-889-7568 to schedule a consultation. Our office speaks Mandarin & Cantonese in addition to English.
Source:
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17985280788657841232