In re the Estate of Beck

260 A.D. 651, 23 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4679
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 25, 1940
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 260 A.D. 651 (In re the Estate of Beck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re the Estate of Beck, 260 A.D. 651, 23 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The question involved here is whether two so-called “ Totten Trusts ” were revoked by the last will and testament of the decedent.

Elizabeth Beck, also known as Elizabeth Culbertson, died August 21, 1939, leaving a last will and testament, which was duly admitted to probate. She left her surviving two sisters, the appellant and the respondent. Her entire estate, aside from jewelry of nominal value, consisted of two certain accounts in savings banks totaling about $4,700. These accounts were in her name, in trust for the appellant. By her will she gave the appellant only five dollars, stating as a reason that the appellant had incurred her ill-feeling by reason of her unfriendly actions. All the rest of her estate, after the payment of her debts, was bequeathed to the respondent. The learned surrogate decreed that the bank deposits belonged to the estate of the decedent and from such decree this appeal is taken.

It is conceded that the appellant never had possession of the bank books nor did she have any knowledge that the deposits were made in the name of the decedent, in trust for her. Under these facts and the other facts presented in this record, we find that the language used in the last will and testament of the decedent is such a decisive act and declaration of disaffirmance as to overcome the presumption that an absolute trust was created in favor of the appellant by the death of the depositor. (Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112.)

The decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be affirmed, with costs to the respondent, payable out of the estate.

Present — Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Close, JJ.

Decree of the Queens County Surrogate’s Court unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent, payable out of the estate.

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

Related

Matter of Estate of Bol
429 N.W.2d 467 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1988)
Jones v. First National Bank
234 S.E.2d 794 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1977)
In re the Estate of Kartzowitz
59 Misc. 2d 595 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1969)
Hudson v. Posey
255 Cal. App. 2d 89 (California Court of Appeal, 1967)
In re the Estate of Service
49 Misc. 2d 399 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1965)
In re the Estate of Stein
42 Misc. 2d 787 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1964)
In re the Estate of Vetroock
34 Misc. 2d 1073 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1962)
In re the Accounting of Maxwell
19 Misc. 2d 500 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1959)
In re the Estate of Poma
20 Misc. 2d 671 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1959)
Rodgers Estate
97 A.2d 789 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1953)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
260 A.D. 651, 23 N.Y.S.2d 525, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-beck-nyappdiv-1940.