In re Quinn
Opinion
The application here raises a question of first impression. The two appeals involve identical facts, though with respect to two different persons, husband and wife. Discussion of one matter will be deemed to apply to both. The petitioners are the committee for Charles P. Jessen, who was duly adjudicated incompetent on October 30, 1970. Some four months prior thereto Mr. Jessen had executed a will drawn for him by respondents, his attorneys. He left the will in respondents’ possession. By this application petitioners seek to have the respondents turn over the will to them.
Strictly speaking, the will is not property
Orders entered February 22, 1971, in New York County (Lupiano, J.) should be modified on the law and as a matter of discretion to direct that respondents deposit the said wills in the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, and that the fees for the same be paid by the petitioners from funds in the incompetents’ estates. No costs.
Cappozzoli, J. P., Nunez, Steueb, Tilzeb and Eager, JJ., concur.
Orders, Supreme Court, New York 'County, entered on February 22, 1971, unanimously modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs and without disbursements, to direct that respondents deposit the said wills in the Surrogate’s Court, New York County, and that the fees for the same be paid by the petitioners from funds in the incompetents’ estates.
The situation may well be otherwise with regard to an ancient or historic will which might have a value quite apart from its purpose. If the will acquires the eharaaterisities of an heirloom or a historic document, it could become property.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
37 A.D.2d 408 (In re Quinn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.