Why a Testator's Next of Kin Matters in Probate
Even lawyers who do not practice in Surrogate's Court often do not understand why it is necessary in a probate proceeding to deal with people who are not named in a testator's will.
January 10, 2022 at 10:15 AM
6 minute read
Executors nominated in decedents' wills often question why it is necessary to contact anyone not named in the will. Other people frequently ask, "Why does an attorney want me to sign a document and get my signature notarized when I don't even know the decedent and I'm not getting anything under the will?" Sometimes they ask the question politely, but other times they say things like "this makes no sense," and hang up the telephone or immediately throw the letter requesting cooperation in the trash. It then becomes awkward to try to explain why cooperation is important. Even lawyers who do not practice in Surrogate's Court often do not understand why it is necessary in a probate proceeding to deal with people who are not named in a testator's will.
The answer is that the probate process involves the extinguishment of intestate rights of individuals, who may be very distantly related to the decedent, in favor of testamentary dispositions set forth in a decedent's will. To accomplish this extinguishment, the Surrogate's Court must not only be satisfied with proof that a document signed by a decedent and presented by a petitioner is in fact a valid will but must also obtain jurisdiction over those persons whose intestate rights are to be cut off. This jurisdiction is normally obtained either by (1) a signed and acknowledged Waiver of Citation and Consent to the probate of a will, or (2) serving a citation on and setting a court date for the cited person to appear in court and state his or her position concerning the validity of the decedent's will.
The intestacy law of the state of New York, Estates, Powers and Trusts Law (EPTL) §4-1.1 provides intestate rights of inheritance to relatives of the decedent ("distributees"), starting with spouse and children, proceeding to parents, siblings, and other relations as remotely related to the decedent as children of first cousins on both the paternal and maternal sides. Most people do not know the names and addresses of such remote relatives. EPTL §2-1.3 provides that distributees include adopted children and their descendants, children conceived before but born after the death of the decedent, and nonmarital children. All a testator's distributees are necessary parties to the probate proceeding in Surrogate's Court in New York State. The situation may be different in other states because the intestacy laws and the probate process itself are different in other jurisdictions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClass Gifts and NY’s 'Adoption Out' Statute: Guidance for NY Fiduciaries on Minimizing Litigation Risks
8 minute readDecision of the Day: Firm, Founding Partner Disqualified From Probate Case Amid Investigation on Undue Influence Claim
Trending Stories
- 1The Quiet Revolution: Private Equity’s Push Into Law Firms
- 2Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 3'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 4Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 5Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250