From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rothman

Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Jun 25, 1931
140 Misc. 597 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1931)

Opinion

June 25, 1931.

David S. Wolfson, for the petitioners.

Joseph E. Keenan, special guardian for Emanuel Rothman, an infant.

Miles F. McDonald, special guardian for Herbert Wienblatt, Mae Wasserman and others, infants.


The legacy in the "second" item of the will for defraying the educational expenses of Emanuel Rothman is a general legacy for a specific purpose and is, therefore, classifiable as a mere general legacy. ( Wetmore v. St. Luke's Hospital, 56 Hun, 313, 321; Matter of Hinman, 32 Misc. 536, 538; Matter of Werrick, 135 id. 876, 877; Matter of Smallman, 138 id. 889, 904; Crawford v. McCarthy, 159 N.Y. 514, 518, 519.) All of testator's realty is specifically devised, and it is elementary that the subjectmatter of specific bequests or devises will not abate in favor of general legatees but only for payment of debts or funeral and administration expenses. ( Taylor v. Dodd, 58 N.Y. 335, 349; Matter of Smallman, 138 Misc. 889, 898.) (See, also, Matter of Hackett, 130 id. 339; Toch v. Toch, 81 Hun, 410, 414.) There is no personalty in the estate from which the debts and expenses can be paid, so that as an a fortiori matter, there is nothing from which the legacy to Emanuel Rothman can be paid. The specifically devised real estate must, of course, be sold or mortgaged for the satisfaction of debts, funeral and estate expenses, but even when this is done, the proceeds retain for purposes of devolution, the nature of real estate and pass to the widow for life with remainder over, as directed in items "fifth" and "sixth" of the will. While this is unquestionably so, the same result would be reached had the will directed an equitable conversion so as to make such proceeds personalty, since the gift to the widow, being in lieu of dower would be preferred over the legacy to Emanuel ( Matter of Smallman, 138 Misc. 889, 906, and cases cited), while the gift of the remainder on her death or remarriage is again a specific legacy. ( Matter of Smallman, 138 Misc. 889, 912, 916.)

While, therefore, it is necessary and proper on the facts shown to exist, that the specifically devised real estate should be mortgaged or sold for the payment of the debts and funeral and administration expenses, no part of such proceeds may be used for the payment of Emanuel's legacy which must abate in its entirety.

Proceed accordingly.


Summaries of

Matter of Rothman

Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Kings County
Jun 25, 1931
140 Misc. 597 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1931)
Case details for

Matter of Rothman

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Estate of HYMAN ROTHMAN, Deceased

Court:Surrogate's Court of the City of New York, Kings County

Date published: Jun 25, 1931

Citations

140 Misc. 597 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1931)
251 N.Y.S. 554

Citing Cases

Matter of Clark

direction to that effect ( Matter of Lloyd, 166 A.D. 1, 7; Morse v. Tilden, 74 id. 132, 136; Orton v. Orton,…

In re the Estate of Uhl

In the absence of an express direction or language from which it may reasonably be inferred that the testator…