In re the Estate of Schott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Schott

270 A.D.2d 41, 704 N.Y.S.2d 47, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2573

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 41 (In re the Estate of Schott) 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 Schott, 270 A.D.2d 41, 704 N.Y.S.2d 47, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2573 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about July 9, 1999, which, based on the decision and order of Judicial Hearing Officer Howard Bell, dismissing objectants’ objections, settled the account of the executrix, and released and discharged her from further liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Objectants, sons of the decedent, concede on appeal that decedent was not incompetent or subject to undue influence when he made the challenged pre-death transfers of his interest in his wholly-owned company to the executrix. In addition, although the terms of the former wife’s stipulation of settlement did not release the claims of the objectants, her sons, against the executrix and the estate, we affirm the dismissal of these claims since they were without substantive merit. Contrary to objectants’ contention, the separation agreement between the decedent and the objectants’ mother merely required decedent to have an irrevocable will naming his sons as beneficiaries; it did not require decedent to include in his estate the subject wholly-owned company. Further, decedent’s interest in his company was not a “security’ or “chose in action” as defined in the separation agreement such that it had to be held for objectants’ benefit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Eve Preminger, S.), entered on or about July 9, 1999, which, based on the decision and order of Judicial Hearing Officer Howard Bell, dismissing objectants’ objections, settled the account of the executrix, and released and discharged her from further liability, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Objectants, sons of the decedent, concede on appeal that decedent was not incompetent or subject to undue influence when he made the challenged pre-death transfers of his interest in his wholly-owned company to the executrix. In addition, although the terms of the former wife’s stipulation of settlement did not release the claims of the objectants, her sons, against the executrix and the estate, we affirm the dismissal of these claims since they were without substantive merit. Contrary to objectants’ contention, the separation agreement between the decedent and the objectants’ mother merely required decedent to have an irrevocable will naming his sons as beneficiaries; it did not require decedent to include in his estate the subject wholly-owned company. Further, decedent’s interest in his company was not a “security’ or “chose in action” as defined in the separation agreement such that it had to be held for objectants’ benefit. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Ellerin, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 41, 704 N.Y.S.2d 47, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-schott-nyappdiv-2000.