Matter of Walters

7 Citing cases

  1. In re the Will of Hohn

    180 Misc. 384 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1943)   Cited 3 times

    The Surrogate holds that the will could not be proved without her testimony and that the legacies to her are void. (Decedent Estate Law, § 27; Matter of Walters, 285 N.Y. 158, 160; Matter of Dwyer, 192 A.D. 72; Matter of Brown, 31 Hun, 166.) The argument of the respondent is based upon the assumption that the Surrogate had accepted as true all of her testimony in the probate proceeding; that he was satisfied that Mrs. Brand did not know that it was a will that she was witnessing; that the other subscribing witnesses were not present when she attested it; and that the decedent had not signed it in her presence or acknowledged it as his signature.

  2. In re Moss

    21 Misc. 3d 507 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    It is observed that the law universally requires that a witness to a deed or bond or other legal transaction be disinterested in the event. Indeed, it is for such reason that a beneficiary of a will may not serve as a witness unless he is entitled to more under intestacy or renounces the benefits conferred on him by the instrument (EPTL 3-3.2 [a] [1]; Matter of Walters, 285 NY 158). It is thus concluded that the partner, because he was not independent, could not witness the Hess disclosure statement.

  3. Matter of Morea

    169 Misc. 2d 415 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1996)   Cited 3 times

    EPTL 3-3.2 (a)(1) provides that an attesting witness to a will to whom a beneficial disposition is made is a competent witness who can be compelled to testify with respect to the execution of such will but that the disposition to the attesting witness is void "unless there are, at the time of execution and attestation, at least two other attesting witnesses to the will who receive no beneficial disposition or appointment thereunder." The purpose of the statute is to preserve the maker's testamentary scheme to at least some extent by making all attesting witnesses competent while preserving the integrity of the process of will executions by removing the possibility that attesting witnesses who receive a disposition under the will might give false testimony in support of the will to protect their legacies ( Matter of Walters, 285 N.Y. 158; Matter of Fracht, 94 Misc.2d 664). The Legislature, in effect, has concluded that the public good is served by requiring that a few innocent attesting witnesses forfeit their legacies so that the validity of a greater number of wills might not be suspect by dint of a beneficiary under the will being one of the attesting witnesses whose testimony is required to probate the will.

  4. Matter of Fracht

    94 Misc. 2d 664 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1978)   Cited 7 times

    Absent the assignments, at first blush, the result in this case may appear to be harsh to the extent that the spouse, without any fault on her part, will receive only approximately one third of the estate instead of the approximately one half which the decedent apparently intended that she receive. However, the twofold purpose of EPTL 3-3.2 is to render all subscribing witnesses competent and at the same time guard against the possibility of a witness being influenced by financial benefit to give self-serving fraudulent testimony in favor of probate (Matter of Walters, 285 N.Y. 158). This is a safeguard created by the Legislature in the exercise of its responsibility to safeguard the validity of testamentary instruments.

  5. Matter of Valente

    8 Misc. 2d 156 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1957)   Cited 3 times

    If in fact it is determined that the will may be probated without such testimony, an application to withdraw his deposition will be entertained. See Matter of Walters ( 285 N.Y. 158, 162) where the court said: "If a witness to the execution of a will were permitted to benefit by its probate, interest might be an inducement to fraud. On the other hand, the testamentary intent of a decedent expressed in a will according to law should not be thwarted where the will is actually proved without the testimony of an interested witness.

  6. Matter of Locke

    7 Misc. 2d 474 (N.Y. Misc. 1957)

    In the absence of any doubt as to the identity of the beneficiary, testatrix' failure to set forth the technical corporate name of the home will not defeat the gift. ( Matter of Walters, 172 Misc. 207, affd. 259 App. Div. 1078, mod. on another point 285 N.Y. 158; Matter of Schuster, 175 Misc. 1072; Lefevre v. Lefevre, 59 N.Y. 434, 440.) Nor does the court find merit in the contention of the objectant that the gift to the Home is in violation of the rule against perpetuities. For the purposes of this determination, it is unnecessary to consider the nature of the gift, as absolute or creating a trust, since in any event the gift vested immediately. It is of course immaterial whether said gift was in fee or a trust in perpetuity.

  7. Matter of Lawless

    194 Misc. 844 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1949)   Cited 26 times
    In Matter of Lawless (194 Misc. 844, 846, affd. 277 App. Div. 1045) it was said that a bequest "for the celebration of masses is of a charitable nature and constitutes a gift in trust for a charitable use".

    It is difficult to perceive humanitarian purposes more clearly encompassed within the mandate of the Tilden Act. ( City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Bennett, 159 Misc. 779, 784-785, supra; Matter of Walters, 172 Misc. 207, 209, affd. 259 A.D. 1078, mod. on other grounds, 285 N.Y. 158; Matter of Lachat, 184 Misc. 486, 488, 490, motion to dismiss appeal granted, 269 A.D. 1013; Matter of Judd, 242 A.D. 389, affd. 270 N.Y. 516, supra; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. New York Guild for Jewish Blind, 252 A.D. 493, 494; Butterworth v. Keeler, 219 N.Y. 446, 451.) The court construes the gift in trust to be for general charitable uses.