TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Bank of America

In the Matter of the Petition of The Bank of America to Render and Settle Its Final Account as Trustee of the Last Will and Testament of Ellen M. Suydam, and for a Construction of the Will

In re Bank of Am., 122 Misc. 340 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
January 15, 1924
Judges
Wingate
Citations
122 Misc. 340

Opinion of the Court — Wingate

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Wingate, S.

That the testatrix, in devising and bequeathing to charitable corporations the remainder interest in her residuary real and personal property, attempted to give to them more than one-half of her estate after the payment of debts, is evidenced by the account and is conceded by the corporations involved.

*342 In computing the proportion of her estate that may go to the charities, under section 17 of the Decedent Estate Law, the debts must first be deducted from the gross personal estate, and to the net personalty thus found must be added the value of the real property as lessened by the loss on sales. Matter of Brooklyn Trust Company (Webb Estate), 92 Misc. Rep. 695, 701 ; affd. on this point, 179 App. Div. 262 .

One-half of this amount, thus ascertained, as of the time of the decedent’s death, is the utmost that can be distributed by the will to the charities; but in computing the amount now to be assured to them, account must be taken of the provisions of the will deferring the enjoyment of their legacies and devises until the termination of the life estate of decedent’s husband. The actual duration of this life estate is now known — four years, ten months and twenty-six days —and the value of the remainder is to be fixed upon the basis of its actual duration and not upon the expectancy of life according to the tables of mortality.

Taking these factors into consideration, and giving full effect to the statute, the surrogate is of the view that the corporate beneficiaries are now entitled to receive money and to take an undivided interest in unsold land of decedent of a combined value equivalent to one-half of the estate, less debts, ascertained as already indicated, plus interest thereon at the rate of five per centum, compounded annually, from the date of death of decedent to the date of death of the life tenant.

The charities are further entitled to such income as has been earned since the life tenant’s death by the portion of decedent’s estate thus found to be theirs.

The entire interest of the charities is not, however, presently payable in money derived from the personalty. The gifts to them are not solely of personalty, but of land as well, and are to be satisfied proportionally from the personalty remaining after the payment of debts and from land and its avails. So much of the personalty as falls into intestacy, under the statute, is, after the satisfaction of expenses of administration, payable to the representatives of decedent’s husband. So much of the avails of land as falls into intestacy retains the character of realty and is payable to decedent’s heirs. With respect to the land unsold, the charities and the heirs are tenants in common to the extent of their relative interests as of the time of the death of the life tenant, as in this memorandum indicated.

The details of distribution may be adjusted by counsel under the rule discussed in Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N. Y. 424 ; Chamberlain v. Taylor, 105 id. 185; Parker v. Linden, 113 id. 28; Read v. *343 Williams, 125 id. 560; Jones v. Kelly, 170 id. 401; Barber v. Terry, 224 id. 334; Matter of Braasch, 206 App. Div. 96 ; Matter of Hamilton, 100 Misc. Rep. 72 .

If counsel are unable to agree in this respect, they may, upon the settlement of the decree, submit memoranda of their views.

The trustee having been unable to ascertain the identity of the heirs, the decree may provide for payment into court of such portion of their shares as is presently payable.

Settle decree of distribution accordingly.

Decreed accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1924: 21927: 21929: 11931: 11932: 11933: 119242026peak 1924 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re Title Guarantee and Trust Co.135 Misc. 611 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1929)
  2. In re the Estate of Sloat141 Misc. 710 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1931)
  3. Fisher v. Lister130 Misc. 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1927)
  4. In re the Estate of Uravic142 Misc. 775 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  5. In re Brooklyn Trust Co.209 A.D. 655 (1924)
  6. In re Brooklyn Trust Co.122 Misc. 343 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1924)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Ruttenau149 Misc. 626 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1933)
  2. In re the Estate of Uravic142 Misc. 775 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1932)
  3. In re the Estate of Sloat141 Misc. 710 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1931)
  4. In re Title Guarantee and Trust Co.135 Misc. 611 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1929)
  5. Fisher v. Lister130 Misc. 1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1927)
  6. In re the Estate of Waddell129 Misc. 495 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1927)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 43 N.Y. 424 (1871) 171
In re Brooklyn Trust Co., 179 A.D. 262 (1917) 43
In re Albers, 206 A.D. 96 (1923) 13
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Title Guarantee & Trust Co., 100 Misc. 72 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1917) 7
In re Brooklyn Trust Co., 15 Mills Surr. 390 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1915) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list