AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

IN THE MATTER OF ROSALIND K. ROTH, A/K/A ROSALIND KITAY ROTH, DECEASED. RICHARD LEWIS RENNERT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS; EUNICE MICHAELS, ET AL., APPELLANTS.

ORDERED that the resettled order is modified, on the law and the facts, by (1) deleting from the second and third decretal paragraphs thereof the provisions setting the dates from which the awards of interest shall run, and substituting therefor provisions awarding interest from the respective dates on which each check was presented to a financial institution for payment, and (2) adding thereto a decretal paragraph directing that the objectants be paid their bequests in the principal sum of $25,000 each; as so modified, the resettled order is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the petitioners are awarded one bill of costs.

"A power of attorney proffered by a principal is clearly given with the intent that the attorney-in-fact will utilize that power for the benefit of the principal" (Moglia v. Moglia, 144 A.D.2d 347, 348). As a result, an attorney-in-fact may not make a valid gift of the principal's property unless there is a clear showing that the principal intended to make the gift (see, Mantella v. Mantella, 268 A.D.2d 852).

Thus, while the attorney-in-fact and her son object to the accounting filed by the executors of the principal's estate, they failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the principal intended to make gifts to the attorney-in-fact, her son, and her grandchildren (see, Matter of Lefft, 44 N.Y.2d 915, 918; Matter of Szabo, 10 N.Y.2d 94, 98; Matter of Platner, 138 A.D.2d 490; Matter of Carroll, 100 A.D.2d 337). As a result, the Surrogate properly ordered that the attorney-in-fact and her son repay the money, with interest, to the executors of the principal's estate (see, CPLR 5001[b]). However, because the principal did not sustain a loss when each check was written, the interest to which the principal's estate is entitled shall be calculated from the date each check was presented to a financial institution for payment (see, CPLR 5001[b]).

Although the attorney-in-fact and her son must repay the money which they contend were gifts from the principal, they are entitled to the bequests set forth in the principal's last will and testament. If they have not yet repaid the money, their bequests may be used to offset what they owe.

The objectants' remaining contentions are without merit.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

MATTER OF ROTH
(May 14, 2001)