In re the Construction of the Will of Kuehnle

New York Surrogate's Court

In re the Construction of the Will of Kuehnle

4 Misc. 2d 540, 158 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1207

CourtNew York Surrogate's Court

DecidedDecember 28, 1956

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 4 Misc. 2d 540 (In re the Construction of the Will of Kuehnle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Surrogate's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Construction of the Will of Kuehnle, 4 Misc. 2d 540, 158 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1207 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Anthony P. Savarese, S.

John Knehnle died on November 15, 1949, and left a last will and testament which was admitted to probate on February 20, 1950. Emil Mayer, the nominated and acting executor, has requested a construction of the fifth paragraph of the will which provides as follows: “I hereby devise the other one-half interest in my house located at 84-45 123rd Street, Richmond Hill, Queens, New York, Ronald Weil. If, at the time of my decease, however, Ronald Weil, shall be an infant, then in that event, I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint Emil Mayer and Matilda Mayer, to be the trustees for said Ronald Weil until he shall have reached the age of 21 years.” By the fourth paragraph of his will testator devised to said Emil Mayer and Matilda Mayer the other one-half interest in the afore-mentioned premises. In the sixth paragraph he gave his moneys on deposit in a named savings bank to said Emil Mayer and Matilda Mayer and in the next succeeding paragraph the rest and residue of his estate to them.

It is evident that testator intended to make a complete disposition of his property, real and personal. While the preposition to was omitted before the name “Ronald Weil”, testator’s intent was to give him an interest in the designated real property. The case is one where, in order to carry out the evident intent of the testator, the missing preposition can and will be inserted by the Surrogate. The question which remains is the nature of the interest given to said Ronald Weil who is an infant of 14 years of age. The proposed trust is clearly passive as no active trust duties or functions are imposed upon the persons designated as trustees in the will. No estate or interest, legal or equitable, vested in the designated trustees within the provisions of section 93 of the Real Property Law. The legal title to a one-half interest in the“specifically described real property is in the infant Ronald Weil. (Jacoby v. Jacoby, 188 N. Y. 124, 129; Matter of Berliner, 267 App. Div. 1000; Matter of Foster, 174 Misc. 933; Matter of Berkel, 184 Misc. 711, 714.) The estate granted passed directly to the devisee. (Matter of Cooney, 112 App. Div. 659, 662; Gueutal v. Gueutal, 113 App. Div. 310.) Since the executor, Emil Mayer took no title, his purported conveyance of a one-half interest in the subject realty to the infant devisee did not affect the interest of the infant. Submit decree construing the will accordingly, on notice.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Anthony P. Savarese, S.

John Knehnle died on November 15, 1949, and left a last will and testament which was admitted to probate on February 20, 1950. Emil Mayer, the nominated and acting executor, has requested a construction of the fifth paragraph of the will which provides as follows: “I hereby devise the other one-half interest in my house located at 84-45 123rd Street, Richmond Hill, Queens, New York, Ronald Weil. If, at the time of my decease, however, Ronald Weil, shall be an infant, then in that event, I hereby nominate, constitute and appoint Emil Mayer and Matilda Mayer, to be the trustees for said Ronald Weil until he shall have reached the age of 21 years.” By the fourth paragraph of his will testator devised to said Emil Mayer and Matilda Mayer the other one-half interest in the afore-mentioned premises. In the sixth paragraph he gave his moneys on deposit in a named savings bank to said Emil Mayer and Matilda Mayer and in the next succeeding paragraph the rest and residue of his estate to them.

It is evident that testator intended to make a complete disposition of his property, real and personal. While the preposition to was omitted before the name “Ronald Weil”, testator’s intent was to give him an interest in the designated real property. The case is one where, in order to carry out the evident intent of the testator, the missing preposition can and will be inserted by the Surrogate. The question which remains is the nature of the interest given to said Ronald Weil who is an infant of 14 years of age. The proposed trust is clearly passive as no active trust duties or functions are imposed upon the persons designated as trustees in the will. No estate or interest, legal or equitable, vested in the designated trustees within the provisions of section 93 of the Real Property Law. The legal title to a one-half interest in the“specifically described real property is in the infant Ronald Weil. (Jacoby v. Jacoby, 188 N. Y. 124, 129; Matter of Berliner, 267 App. Div. 1000; Matter of Foster, 174 Misc. 933; Matter of Berkel, 184 Misc. 711, 714.) The estate granted passed directly to the devisee. (Matter of Cooney, 112 App. Div. 659, 662; Gueutal v. Gueutal, 113 App. Div. 310.) Since the executor, Emil Mayer took no title, his purported conveyance of a one-half interest in the subject realty to the infant devisee did not affect the interest of the infant. Submit decree construing the will accordingly, on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Misc. 2d 540, 158 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1956 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-construction-of-the-will-of-kuehnle-nysurct-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack