TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Weinig

In the Matter of the Estate of Belle Weinig

In re the Estate of Weinig, 66 Misc. 2d 216 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
April 21, 1971
Judges
Bennett
Citations
66 Misc. 2d 216320 N.Y.S.2d 3411971 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1683

Opinion of the Court — Bennett

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

John D. Bennett, S.

The executrix of the within estate mailed a renunciation of her legacy to this court on April 8, 1971. The renunciation is dated November 10, 1970 and the decedent’s will was probated on May 15, 1968. The question presented is whether the court should direct or request that the fiduciary take additional steps in making her renunciation.

Unlike a renunciation of an intestate share (EPTL 4-1.3), there is no statutory provision relating to the procedure to renounce a testamentary legacy. The Temporary State Commission on Estates gave serious study to the question of whether the procedure for the renunciation of a testate share should be the same as that for an intestate share and, at the time, it was decided only to outline the procedure to renounce an intestate share (Third Report of Temporary State Comm, on Law of Estates, N. Y. Legis. Doc., 1964, No. 19, Report No. 1.6B, p. 237). It is more difficult to outline a procedure for the renunciation of a testate share because, unlike intestacy where a party immediately has an estimate of the value of his share and can thereby determine if it would be better for him to renounce or not, a testamentary share is more complicated and may involve powers and future interests. It was because of these complications and the fact that there was case law on the question of the procedure to be undertaken in renouncing a testate share that the commission was motivated not to make statutory provisions for the renouncing of a legacy.

During the past few years, there have been bills filed with the Legislature, proposing certain procedure for the renunciation of a legacy. Until this question is resolved, the court deems it advisable to give some guidance to the members of the Bar as to what steps would be advisable in renouncing a testamentary legacy. This court will accept for filing any renunciation of a legacy but it is to the legatee’s benefit that he take additional steps to make the renunciation more effective.

It is suggested that, when a renunciation of a legacy is sought, the instrument should be in writing, served upon the court, the fiduciary and all the interested parties who would be affected as a result of the renunciation. In addition, an affidavit should be submitted, especially where a long period of time has elapsed from the date the will was probated to the date of the renunciation, setting forth the facts and circumstances which would justify the legatee’s right to renounce the legacy and indicate *218 whether there were any actions on the part of the legatee which might manifest the acceptance of the legacy. The affidavit should set forth the reason for the long delay in making the renunciation and whether the renunciation will affect any of the legatee’s creditors’ rights (see Matter of Wilson, 298 N. Y. 398 ; 4B Warren’s Heaton, Surrogates’ Courts [6th ed.], § 406, par. 10).

Accordingly, the renunciation will be accepted for filing and the fiduciary should give consideration to complying with the above suggestions.

How later courts describe this case

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

1974: 21976: 11977: 11983: 119742026peak 1974 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Estate of Dreyer v. Commissioner68 T.C. 275 (Tax Ct. 1977)
  2. Estate of Patterson v. Commissioner1983 T.C. Memo. 381
  3. Estate of Hoenig v. Commissioner66 T.C. 471 (Tax Ct. 1976)
  4. Estate of Caswell v. Commissioner62 T.C. No. 7
  5. In re the Estate of Bolton79 Misc. 2d 895 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1974)

Most recent

  1. Estate of Patterson v. Commissioner1983 T.C. Memo. 381
  2. Estate of Dreyer v. Commissioner68 T.C. 275 (Tax Ct. 1977)
  3. Estate of Hoenig v. Commissioner66 T.C. 471 (Tax Ct. 1976)
  4. In re the Estate of Bolton79 Misc. 2d 895 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1974)
  5. Estate of Caswell v. Commissioner62 T.C. No. 7

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
In re the Accounting of Wilson, 83 N.E.2d 852 (N.Y. 1949) 26

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