In re the Probate of the Will of Bacharach

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Probate of the Will of Bacharach

12 A.D.2d 938, 211 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1961

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 938 (In re the Probate of the Will of Bacharach) 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 Probate of the Will of Bacharach, 12 A.D.2d 938, 211 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to probate the last will and testament of the deceased, which was contested by the three respondents named Abels and by the respondent Eshbaugh, and which resulted in the will being admitted to probate after a compromise pursuant to which each of the four contestants and the infant respondent would receive $2,000 upon the death of Eleanore Weel, the life beneficiary of the residuary trust created by the will, the said life beneficiary and the Attorney-General appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 1960, made pursuant to section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, as fixed $2,500 as the compensation for the four contestants’ attorneys, the respondents Conner, Chopniek & Garrell, “ for the legal services rendered by them which were useful to the Court and of substantial benefit to this estate ”. Order modified on the law and the facts by striking out the third decretal, paragraph fixing the compensation of said attorneys at $2,500, and by substituting therefor a provision denying any compensation to them out of the testator’s estate. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the order and in the opinion or decision of the Surrogate, insofar as such findings may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion the legal services rendered by the contestants’ attorneys benefited only the contestants, and not the estate; and, hence, the attorneys must seek compensation from their clients personally (Matter of Foreman, 238 App. Div. 388; Matter of Wadsworth, 250 App. Div. 11, affd. 275 N. Y. 590; Matter of Luckenbach, 280 App. Div. 994, affd. 307 N. Y. 795; Matter of Rudden, 21 Misc 2d 688). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to probate the last will and testament of the deceased, which was contested by the three respondents named Abels and by the respondent Eshbaugh, and which resulted in the will being admitted to probate after a compromise pursuant to which each of the four contestants and the infant respondent would receive $2,000 upon the death of Eleanore Weel, the life beneficiary of the residuary trust created by the will, the said life beneficiary and the Attorney-General appeal from so much of an order of the Surrogate’s Court, Kings County, dated May 6, 1960, made pursuant to section 231-a of the Surrogate’s Court Act, as fixed $2,500 as the compensation for the four contestants’ attorneys, the respondents Conner, Chopniek & Garrell, “ for the legal services rendered by them which were useful to the Court and of substantial benefit to this estate ”. Order modified on the law and the facts by striking out the third decretal, paragraph fixing the compensation of said attorneys at $2,500, and by substituting therefor a provision denying any compensation to them out of the testator’s estate. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact implicit in the order and in the opinion or decision of the Surrogate, insofar as such findings may be inconsistent herewith, are reversed and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion the legal services rendered by the contestants’ attorneys benefited only the contestants, and not the estate; and, hence, the attorneys must seek compensation from their clients personally (Matter of Foreman, 238 App. Div. 388; Matter of Wadsworth, 250 App. Div. 11, affd. 275 N. Y. 590; Matter of Luckenbach, 280 App. Div. 994, affd. 307 N. Y. 795; Matter of Rudden, 21 Misc 2d 688). Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.2d 938, 211 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-probate-of-the-will-of-bacharach-nyappdiv-1961.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack