Estate Lawyers New York Inheritance Agreement Upheld

For several years, the client managed hospital care, daily living assistance, and substantial financial support for the decedent.

In recognition of this contribution, the father openly expressed his intent to allocate a specific commercial property to the eldest son.

Before his passing, the father convened his children and executed a written inheritance agreement memorializing this intent, signed by all heirs.

The petitioner argued that the agreement lacked legal effect and should not bind the Surrogate’s Court.

Estate lawyers New York countered that New York courts routinely recognize binding family settlement agreements executed during a decedent’s lifetime, provided intent and consent are clear.

Under EPTL § 3-3.10 and relevant Surrogate’s Court precedent, such agreements are enforceable where they reflect the decedent’s intent and voluntary assent of the heirs.

The petitioner asserted that a vehicle transfer and periodic cash support received by the client constituted advancements.

Counsel demonstrated that under EPTL § 2-1.5, lifetime transfers are treated as advancements only if expressly declared as such by the decedent in writing.

Financial records and testimony established that the transfers were reimbursement for caregiving expenses and operational costs, not gratuitous gifts.

The signed inheritance agreement explicitly stated that the Manhattan commercial property would vest solely in the eldest son.

Additionally, text messages sent by the petitioner after the father’s death acknowledged an intention to honor the father’s wishes.

Estate lawyers New York emphasized this post death conduct as corroborating evidence of assent and waiver.

As a protective measure, counsel asserted a contingent claim for an equitable credit for services rendered under EPTL § 5-3.2.

The client’s extensive unpaid labor, financial contributions, and business management were documented through medical records and accounting evidence.

This ensured that even if partial division were considered, the client’s contribution would be prioritized.

The court found that all heirs had voluntarily executed the agreement and that no additional estate assets existed beyond the commercial property.

The alleged advancements were rejected due to lack of statutory designation under New York law.

Because the primary petition was dismissed, the alternative contribution claim was deemed moot and closed without further adjudication.