New York Probate & Estate Litigation Blog

Failure To Revise Estate Tax Law Has Unintended Consequences

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:31:02 -0500

Who'da thunk that we would be almost to April and a bill to re-institute the federal estate tax isn't even on the radar screens down in Washington? The estates of those dying since January 1 owe no federal estate taxes and there is nothing on the horizon which indicates that this may change soon. In a nation that seems to prefer rich desserts to vegetables, rejoicing over this tax holiday may be a bit premature --and our current estate tax situation certainly carries with it some unintended risks which should be of some concern.

The estate tax has always been a way to provide a substantial source of revenue to fund our government.. In an era of historically huge deficits where the government is doing everything short of scrounging in the couch for spare change, this is a truly strange development. Having an estate tax is a driving force behind wealthy indivuals making large charitable donations and an age-old tool to prevent the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

An article in yesterday's New York Times points out some additional consequences which are now of increasing concern. Most wills drawn over the past generation (which is to say "most wills") provide language aimed at reducing the taxman's bite by the use of trusts and other devices. The problem is, that these "formula clauses" may end up by disinheriting the very people the wills were set up to benefit! This is because the language often ties the amount to be left in trust to the amount of the federal estate tax credit or exclusion. Since this year there is NO exclusion or credit since there is no tax, the trust may not get funded and the children --or the spouse-- may be unintentionally disinherited.

Keep in mind that if our Congress continues to ignore this mess and 2010 ends with no action, the old estate tax with a one million dollar limit will spring back to life and wreak a different kind of havoc on the estate plans of those with exclusions set at recent levels of two million dollars and above. Underlying this all is the issue of how retroactive any tax revisions will be -- or whether there will be retroactivity at all.

For those of you who scoff at my suggestion that maybe there will be no retroactivity on the new law, did you ever think we would find ourselves where we are now with an estate tax having expired nearly three months ago and no plans to revive it in sight?

Presumption Of Death Certificate Is Rebutted

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 22:57:12 -0500

Nassau County Surrogate John Riordan has found that an objectant in the Matter of the Estate of Willie Stewart,340211 successfully established that she and her son were distributees of the decedent, notwithstanding the fact that his death certificate provided otherwise. While there is a strong presumption as to the information contained in a death certificate, the court was clear to point out that while the document is proof of the cause of death stated therein, collateral facts which it contains may be subject to rebuttal.

The court had held a hearing to determine if the objectant, Doreen Stewart was the surviving spouse of the decedent. She had been married to him in 1988, ten years following his divorce from his first wife. Although the decedent subsequently remarried and once more divorced his first wife, Doreen was able to establish that she had never been divorced. thereby also proving that the remarriage to the first wife was invalid and that she was the surviving spouse. The court further found that the decedent's sons were unable to establish that their father's marriage to Doreen had ever been dissolved (she had been able to show that no divorce or annulment of her marriage had taken place in the decedent's home state of Georgia --or in New York where his property is located). Therefore, in this very unusual state of facts, it was possible to rebut the presumption raised by the inclusion of collateral information in the death certificate -- which could therefore not be used to exclude Doreen as surviving spouse.

This is an extremely egregious example of what may happen when our clients fail to properly obtain divorces.Lawyers engaged in matrimonial practice must constantly be aware of these possibilities. It is important to realize that the failure to properly complete the divorce or annulment procedure leads to serious problems many years later. The failure of a subsequent remarriage usually comes home to roost after a generation when the intended surviving spouse is elderly, with reduced assets and suffering from emotional anguish at the loss of a beloved companion. While most folks do not intentionally skip the minor detail of legally ending one marriage before beginning the next, the temptation to fly off to obtain a foreign divorce, or to run off to a state with a short residency requirement can often prove to be a ticking time bomb which does not go off until a hapless would-be surviving spouse sees his or her marriage successfully attacked after suffering the death of a mate.

Brooke Astor's Son Sentenced To Prison

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:15:40 -0500

In a special bulletin, the New York Times has just reported that Anthony D Marshall, son of the late socialite Brooke Astor has been sentenced to prison by a New York State Supreme Court Justice. Marshall was sentenced to one to three years in state prison by Justice A. Kirke Bartley Jr. after being convicted of stealing millions from his mother while she was alive. The case drew national attention first when it came to light that Marshall had kept his mother as a virtual prisoner, left to wallow in her own waste. The case focused attention on the growing problem of elder abuse, demonstrating that even super rich seniors such as Brooke Astor were subject to being severely mistreated by their own families. Marshall, who is 85 years old, has vowed to appeal the verdict so, given his advanced age and the legal firepower available to him, it is anyone's guess when he will actually report to start serving his sentence .

Ruminations On New York's New Power Of Attorney

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 09:39:24 -0500

Your faithful lawblogger has recently prepared and given a podcast on the new statutory Power of Attorney in effect here since September 1. It led me to further thoughts over just what some of the implications of this new power may pose for lawyers and clients alike. Three months after the effective date, it is clear that most of the profession has barely yawned but make no mistake about it, even though it is still evidently under the radar, a quiet revolution in an important segment of the practice of law has taken place.

In true legislative fashion, we have a form of ten or so pages labeled as "POWER OF ATTORNEY NEW YORK STATUTORY SHORT FORM" ! An important feature of the form is that where any transfer of the principal's property in excess of five hundred dollars is involved a "major gifts rider" must be executed as part of the power. That would not only apply to the gifts which an agent is now entitled to make from the assets of the principal but also most banking transactions and probably all real estate and insurance transactions made for the benefit of the principal by his or her agent.

The new law specifically requires that both the principal and the agent sign the form and that there should be two witnesses signing in addition. The law requires that the power be executed and witnessed ":with the same formality as a will".

In the words of Shakespeare "Aye, there's the rub!" No more can an attorney responding to the client who discovers he or she is leaving town tomorrow and wants to execute a power of attorney appointing a spouse, adult child, or the lawyer to act in his or her place simply say that the office staff will prepare a power and the client can drop by at a convenient time, sign the power before one of the notaries in the office and leave (this was always a service I could cheerfully provide without charge). Now a formal appointment is needed where both the agent and the principal are present . How about when the trusted adult child who is to act under the power is in another city and cannot be present? No real direction from the law there so we must assume all parties must be present.

We are also going to be under the requirement of conducting a formal ceremony about identical to the rite of execution of a will. Issues of "due execution" will certainly arise and will be complicated by the fact that a much higher level of competence is going to be required to have been shown for the execution of such a broad and sweeping power than a will which requires minimal cranial candlepower to establish testamentary capacity.

What happens when a client scheduled to handle an important real estate deal calls his trusted lawyer and asks his counselor to close on powers because of an emergency business trip to a distant city? Let us say that the power is executed and the transaction takes place as scheduled with the attorney filling in for the client. Now let fate throw us a zinger when the client simply doesn't wake up in his hotel room the next day and there are those folks back at home who would like to set aside the transaction. Better believe that the ceremony surrounding the execution of the power is going to be the subject of extensive legal scrutiny from some well-paid lawyers on the other side!

The bottom line here is that a whole new routine of dealing with the execution of powers of attorney needs to be put in place . It would also be a good idea simply to study the statutory form and to read the law which is Section 644 of New York's General Obligations Law. Then take at least one good CLE course. The New York State Bar has an excellent two hour webcast which I believe can still be obtained and many local bar associations have run programs. Follow the same procedures you would have in place for the execution of a will but be sure to include some time to make sure that both the agent and principal understand their roles, responsibilities and exposure. Finally, this is no longer a courtesy you can give away. It is no legal "loss leader" and both lawyer and client will have to understand that there is considerable time that a lawyer will be investing in the preparation and execution of a power of attorney and a reasonable charge for this would be appropriate and should be expected.

Failure To Timely File Articles Of Organization Results In A Deed Being Set Aside

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:45:54 -0500

The New York State Court of Appeals has just handed down a decision in The Matter of Hausman 2009 NY Slip Op 08854 which has upheld an Appellate Division decision setting aside a deed executed by the decedent in favor of an LLC formed by two of her children two weeks before they actually filed the articles of organization with the secretary of state. The court ruled that because the filing had not been made before the deed was executed, the corporation lacked the legal ability to take title to the property . The problem here that although the deed might have been ruled valid under the de facto corporations rule (which is what the Surrogate's Court did initially), there needed to have been some colorable attempt to comply with the statutes governing the organization of corporations before the deed was executed. Because the children of the decedent failed to submit any proof that they had at least tried to file the articles of organization before the execution of the deed, it was determined that the conveyance had failed and the deed was set aside with the property ending up in the residuary of the estate. Since the residuary was to be shared equally between her children , per stirpes, the property was shared with the minor grandchildren of the decedent who had survived two predeceased sons.

DNA Test Ordered By Surrogate In Case Of First Impression

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:38:29 -0500

Bronx County Surrogate Lee Holzman, in a case of first impression, has found that a decedent's posthumous non-marital son was entitled to posthumous DNA testing to determine his standing as a potential distributee of his late father. This decision on a motion in the Estate of Jermaine Michael Williams was rendered on December 3rd and was also reported in today's New York Post appears to be the first time a request for posthumous testing was made on behalf of a posthumous child.

Jermaine Michael Williams was a bodyguard of rapper Busta Rhymes who was allegedly murdered on May 28, 2008 several months before the birth of the alleged posthumous child on September 26 2008. In addition to this child, the decedent was the father of two other non-marital sons of different mothers. His brother is the guardian of the property of the two boys and has objected to the posthumous child's inclusion as a distributee.

Previous cases of this nature which involved situations where the decedent's body would have to have been exhumed which prior appellate courts found to be against public policy. In addition, the legislative intent of the law providing for DNA testing indicates that the test had to have been administered prior to death. Those previous cases where -- as in this case-- it was not necessary to disinter the body because tissue samples existed following an autopsy required some open acknowledgment by the decedent of his paternity of the child in question. Surrogate Holzman realized that this would be a virtual impossibility in a situation where the decedent never had the opportunity to get to know an as yet unborn child and his decision relieves the movant of proving this otherwise necessary element of the claim. Whether or not that will be upheld should there be an appeal of this decision can certainly not be predicted at this time -- but one would surely think that the Surrogate's findings were logical and totally in step with the times.

New Bills To Restore The Estate Tax In The Congressional Hopper

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:11:06 -0500

As reported today by fellow lawblogger Karen Meckstroth in her Bay Area Wills, Trusts And Probate Report Blog two Representatives have filed different bills to amend the Internal Revenue Code and to restore the estate tax which would otherwise terminate for one year in 2010. The bills proposed by Rep. Berkley (D.NY) and Rep. Schrader (D-OR) may each be viewed by clicking on the link provided by Ms. Meckstroth in her article. Both provide for an increase in the basic estate tax exemption to 5 million dollars. and for a reduction in the maximum estate tax and gift rate.

Interestingly enough, the Berkley bill also provides for a phaseout of the deductions now allowed for state estate taxes. A New York State resident with a six million dollar estate would pay no federal estate tax on the first five million dollars of his or her estate but would have a two hundred fifty thousand dollar New York State estate tax bill (five per cent of everything over one million dollars). Since countless wealthy New Yorkers have already fled to sunny Florida --where there is no estate tax-- how severely would this migration be affected If this tax lost its federal deductibility? Even though it might amount to no more than an additional hundred thousand dollars or so in federal estate tax (under the reduced rates), some might regard it as that proverbial last straw.

More important is the fact the estate tax will not kick in until the decedent has left a gross estate high enough to shelter the family farm and the family business. Since it is usually possible to shelter twice the amount of the unified credit where a married couple is involved (provided they engage in some sensible estate planning), most estates will not pay any federal tax on estates under ten million dollars after both spouses have died. At the same time, seriously wealthy folks (think about some of the chief executives of some banks and insurance companies we have bailed out!) will have to pay their fair share without impairing their survivors' ability to get by nicely. This will insure not only a source of income for our strapped government but also will continue to provide incentive to make substantial charitable bequests for the public good.

The restoration of the estate tax will also help to prevent a situation where there is a concentration of extreme wealth amongst one or two percent of our population. This has never boded well for any society where it has occurred.

Martin Luther King Estate Is Finally Settled

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:19:40 -0500

More than forty years after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., his children have resolved a bitter dispute over his multi million dollar estate. As reported by Bruce Carton in an article posted on Legal Blog Watch today, the lawsuits and countersuits stemming from charges of misuse of estate funds and seeking control over various assets have been settled, the family seeking to move on and preserve the legacy of their late father. An interesting sidelight of the story is that the estate retains a legal interest in the copyright of Dr. King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech that thrilled those present at the March on Washington in August 1963 . In 1999, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the "public performance" of the speech, did not constitute "general publication' so as to cause the copyright to be forfeited.

Court Leaves Door Open For Foreign Heir To Exercise Fiduciary Rights

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:28:22 -0500

Recently, your faithful lawblogger attended a seminar at the local bar association which was emceed by Nassau County Surrogate John Riordan. The surrogate took this opportunity to discuss the recently decided case of Schoeps v. Andrew Lloyd Webber Art Foundation which is reported at 884 NYS2d396. This First Department Appellate Division case is of interest on several levels. It deals with the attempt of a German national to recover a multi-million dollar Picasso painting which he alleged was part of a huge art collection sold for a fraction of its true value when the Nazis were seizing Jewish assets in pre-war Germany.

Relying on German law which provides that ownership rights of property vest in the heirs at death, Schoeps brought suit in New York without first obtaining letters of administration appointing him as the legal representative of the deceased. Schoeps maintained that if a German court would recognize his status, an American court should afford him the same right pursuant to the principles of comity. He had filed a complaint in United States District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking to block the sale of the Picasso by the Andrew Lloyd Webber Foundation at an auction at Christies in New York. After this complaint was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, the defendant opted to withdraw the piece from auction and returned it to London on the very same day that plaintiff Schoeps sued in the New York County Supreme Court seeking to impose a constructive trust and damages for conversion among other things. The lower court granted a motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed.

Citing New York law that "absent extraordinary circumstances, even a party who is the sole beneficiary of the estate 'cannot act on behalf of the estate or exercise...fiduciary's rights without respect to estate property'" the court ultimately affirmed the lower court's decision. The catch here is that the court, in this decision now recognizes that "extraordinary circumstances" might exist such as would give the claimant the right to act in New York without first obtaining letters. The problem here was that Schoeps failed to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances . He might possibly have succeeded had (as the court notes) he provided a verified provenance of the painting showing decisively that it had been in his family prior to the Nazi takeover of Germany. He also failed to provide "an affidavit from an expert in the law of the foreign jurisdiction concerning inheritance rights together with certified documentation from that jurisdiction formally certifying his right to pursue his claim.

In essence, this case is a cautionary lesson for the practitioner. Here, plaintiff had a legal mountain to climb with a reward worth millions at the peak. Though the challenge was formidable, he also could have had the tools to succeed --the expert opinions and certifications noted by the court-- had he only made a reasonable effort to obtain them. What would the outcome of this case have been had plaintiff taken the extra time and effort to be thoroughly prepared to establish the existence of extraordinary circumstances? One can only wonder!

A Usefull Guide To The Dreaded Generation Skipping Transfer Tax (GST)

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:10:21 -0500

Like so many of my readers, the mere mention of the Generation Skipping Tax causes my eyes to glaze over. I usually break into a cold sweat before I consult the books --and the experts-- in order to deal with a particular GST problem. Your faithful law blogger still believes in calling in the experts in GST estate planning situations, but I think you will find this article by Mark Powell Esq. in this month's Journal of Accountancy to be quite helpful .

Jury Convicts Brooke Astor's Son and Her Former Lawyer For Plundering Her Estate

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 16:43:31 -0500

The New York Times has just reported that a Westchester County Jury has convicted Anthony D. Marshall, 85 year old son of the late socialite Brooke Astor of fourteen counts of stealing from his mother's estate. Also convicted of forgery was Francis X Morrissey, former attorney of Ms. Astor. The jury returned its verdicts after twelve days of deliberations and after things had reached the point where it appeared that it may have reached an impasse which would have resulted in a mistrial.

The court set sentencing for December 8th when Marshall stands to receive as much as twenty five years in prison , although the sentence might be as light as one year. While it is likely that the verdicts will both be appealed, today's conviction for a felony results in automatic disbarment for Morrissey under state law.

The two defendants were convicted of plundering the one hundred eighty million dollar estate of Brooke Astor who had been suffering from Alzheimer's' Disease in the years prior to her death in 2007 at the age of 105. Ms. Astor's plight came to national attention several years ago when it became known that her son was mistreating her and leaving her to wallow in her own filth while he spent her money.

Trustee's Duty Requires Undivided And Undiluted Loyalty

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 22:44:26 -0500

New York's Fourth Department Appellate Division has laid down the marker for a trustee's fiduciary responsibility in Capital Heat, Inc. v. Michael R. Blatner Family Trust reported at 882 N.Y.S.2d 632. This matter involved a life insurance agreement made by the plaintiff with the defendant trust when the trustee was also a shareholder and an employee of the plaintiff. In reversing a motion for summary judgment granted by the lower court against the trust for the value of the policy premium, the court ruled that "a fiduciary's duty requires 'not honesty alone but the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive'" with ' "undivided and undiluted loyalty to those whose interests the fiduciary is to protect' ".

Your lawblogger has reported on this case because it sets forth the obligation of a trustee in a nutshell. Not even the slightest hint of self-dealing is tolerable in the relationship between a fiduciary and those whose interests he or she is to protect. Although this is a "bright line" distinction, it is sometimes difficult for a fiduciary to recognize a problem when it occurs. Keep in mind that the obligation of a fiduciary is unforgiving and -- in the absence of either a duly executed release or a court order-- without end. It is therefore important for trustees to carefully review their financial decisions with counsel in order to insure that they are acting appropriately.

New York's New Power Of Attorney Mandated for September First

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 00:10:12 -0500

New York State's new form for a power of attorney which takes effect on September 1, 2009 marks a major change in the law. It may be found in Section 644 of New York's General Obligations Law. As I reported earlier, the effective date of the law was postponed from this past February to give the bar a chance to become familiar with the new form and its pitfalls. The changes are so complex that a second law to amend the first and to correct some of its inconsistencies and shortcomings was needed. Unfortunately, those unruly children who comprise the august body some folks call the New York State Senate were so busy this summer having what can only be seen as a legislative food fight that virtually no meaningful work was done for weeks and this most important piece of legislation has not yet been signed into law. This can only add to the possibility that the new law will become an attorney's relief act.

While any duly drawn and executed power in existence prior to the new law will remain in full force and effect, we will all have to get used to some sweeping changes . It is necessary to take particular notice of the new form which requires not only the signature of the giver of the power but also of the agent. Specific and extensive warnings to both the giver and the agent must be acknowledged and the major gifts portion of the document must be executed simultaneously with the basic power . The major gifts portion of the power requires two witnesses and must be executed in the same manner as a will. The clear intent of the law is that both the giver of the power and the agent are far more aware of the importance of the document . The exposure of the giver is clearly spelled out as are the responsibilities of the agent who may be entitled to compensation for his or her service.

All new powers of attorney are to be durable unless it is specifically noted in the instrument that they are not.

The law mandates that banks accept the power and further provides that attorneys may certify that a photocopy of a duly executed power is a true copy of the original.Banks are required to accept these certified copies. This will help to eliminate the problems which arise when a bank insists that only its own power of attorney be used --- something that may be impossible where the depositor has become incompetent and can no longer issue a new power.

There is a wide range of open issues and questions that have arisen as a result of the new power of attorney. Litigation is a likelihood in order to have resolution of these items and the potential that some folks will suffer drastic unforeseen outcomes exists. It will be years before the first cases work their way through the courts and we have some definite answers and directions. The best way I can think of to avoid ending up in a casebook is to do a lot of reading, take a class or two, and stick slavishly to the forms without improvising (the exact language needed to create a valid power is mandated and there does not appear to be room for variations). Your faithful law blogger will try to come up with additional information and pointers in the near future.

Good Luck!

After Three Months, The Brooke Astor Trial Is Becoming --Dare We Say?-- Boring

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 23:10:06 -0500

In a surprise move, the prosecution in the Brooke Astor trial rested its case, according to the New York Times. The trial has now been front page news in New York for three months. The trial of Ms. Astor's son Anthony Marshall and his attorney Francis X Morrissey for allegedly forging a codicil to her will has had countless twists and turns. Marshall and Morrissey are facing a total of 22 charges of conspiracy, scheming to defraud, larceny and forgery. This is enough to keep a battalion of lawyers busy at a cost of over $100,000 per week.

We have seen allegations of elder abuse of the 105 year old socialite and there has been extensive testimony as to the acrimonious relationship between Ms. Astor and her daughter in law Charlene Marshall. Attorney Francis Morrissey's wining and dining of rich, elderly widows who often left him valuable pieces of art or substantial bequests is reminiscent of Zero Mostel's forays into "Little Old Ladyland" in "The Producers"! The jury has seen and heard a veritable Who's Who of A-list witnesses including Henry Kissinger and Barbara Walters and Annette De La Renta. Last week, the fore lady of the jury was mugged on the subway in front of two fellow jurors who came to her aid.

With all of this hoopla, it may come as some surprise that the Times reports that in addition to trying the defendants, the patience of the court and the jurors also appears to have been on trial. This trial has gone on far longer than anyone would have expected. There have lengthy rulings over seemingly ridiculous objections such as a fifteen minute hiatus to determine whether or not "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window" could be characterized as a children's song! Jurors are becoming visibly bored in the courtroom (one wonders how they are feeling about putting their lives on hold for a whopping forty dollars a day while the trial drones on ).

There is concern as to whether or not the trial has gone on so long and has become so boring that jurors are losing interest. Some legal observers have voiced the opinion that the case has been overtried by the prosecutors and the result is to simply deluge the jurors with such a volume of testimony and information that they are beginning to forget what they have heard. This is obviously the reason for the sudden decision of the prosecution to rest -- but has it come too late to save their case? Keeping in mind that the prosecution has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the advantage may well have shifted to the defense.

Now there will be defense motions to dismiss. Assuming these motions are denied, the defense is about to have its day. Or days. Or perhaps weeks and months!

Bid To Compel Accounting Fails

philaw@optonline.net (Philip Bernstein) — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:01:25 -0500

Erie County Surrogate Barbara Howe found that she lacked jurisdiction to compel an accounting by a successor guardian who had volunteered to administer a custodial account left for the benefit of the petitioner by his grandfather. In Re Gold is reported at 879 N.Y.S.2d 795. While the case itself is no more than a family food fight over what happened to less than five thousand dollars after a family member volunteered to handle the account when the petitioner's grandmother (the original guardian) passed away, it brings to light an interesting conflict in the law .

EPTL 7-6.19 permits the legal guardian of a minor over the age of 14 (in addition to a family member or the donor of the account or the donor's legal representative) to petition to compel an accounting by the custodian of the account. Contrast this with EPTL7-6.1(k)'s definition of a "minor" as one who has not attained the age of 21. Since the petitioner was over the age of 21, the court found that it lacked the jurisdiction to compel the accounting inasmuch as the same section of the law defines "court" as either "the supreme court or the surrogate's court having jurisdiction over the minor"(emphasis added by the court).

In addition to finding that she had no jurisdiction over the matter where the petitioner was no longer a minor, she also noted that the surrogate's court's jurisdiction relates to matters affecting the estates of decedents and not independent matters between living persons. The facts and circumstances of this matter in no way affected the decedent of the administration of his estate.

The consolation prize here is that the youthful petitioner still has a remedy to torture his hapless relative by bringing an action in a court of competent jurisdiction for a claim other than an accounting (e.g., conversion).