Search for: "MATTER OF TRUST B UNDER LAST WILL"
Results 761 - 780
of 1,238
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
10 Apr 2014, 6:48 pm
Under SCPA 207[1], proceedings involving lifetime trusts can be properly heard where "(a) assets of the trust estate are located, or (b) the grantor was domiciled at the time of the commencement of a proceeding concerning the trust, or (c) a trustee then acting sides." [read post]
31 Mar 2014, 4:11 am
Statutory construction The majority said that as a matter of ordinary statutory construction, s.32(2) FOIA imposes an absolute exemption from disclosure that lasts until the relevant information is destroyed or for up to 30 (or in future 20) years under the Public Records Act 1958: [34]. [read post]
20 Mar 2014, 6:59 pm
The husband moves for an order under CPLR 3212 (a) dismissing the petition seeking probate of the September 5, 2007 instrument; (b) dismissing the objections to his appointment as executor of the decedent's estate; and, (c) under SCPA 2103, granting the relief sought in the turnover proceeding commenced by him. [read post]
10 Mar 2014, 7:35 am
The bill would authorize members of a class to vote separately on any matter. [read post]
4 Mar 2014, 6:07 pm
In Matter of Singer, the decedent's will and lifetime trust substantially favored the decedent's daughter over the decedent's son. [read post]
3 Mar 2014, 6:08 pm
EPTL 3-3.5(b)(3)(D) provides that the preliminary examination under SCPA 1404 of the attesting witnesses, the person who drafted the will, the nominated executors and the proponents in a probate proceeding will not result in the forfeiture of any benefit under the will. [read post]
26 Feb 2014, 6:17 pm
Letters testamentary were directed to issue to Bankers Trust Company, the executor named in the New York will, 'provided that such letters testamentary, and the authority, responsibility and accountability of Bankers Trust Company thereunder, shall not extend to property, money or matters administered in Mexico but shall otherwise be unlimited.' [read post]
19 Feb 2014, 4:52 am
And as long as this alternative legal option would not itself impose a substantial burden on plaintiffs' religious exercise, the RFRA claims should be rejected, regardless of whether an actual federal mandate to cover contraception would impose a substantial burden.Hobby Lobby's brief, filed last Monday, addresses both of these matters. [read post]
17 Feb 2014, 10:01 pm
But scientists believe E. coli didn’t pick up the genes that cause human illness until late last century. [read post]
14 Feb 2014, 12:00 pm
§ 824d(a)–(b), require that charges associated with regional power-grid upgrades be allocated to consumers on a basis proportional with the benefits those consumers will receive from the upgrades (as the D.C. [read post]
12 Feb 2014, 4:00 am
For this last week: Borowski v. [read post]
11 Feb 2014, 10:37 am
Under Texas law, therefore, Defendant need not hold the Note in order to foreclose; it need only have the right to foreclose under the Deed of Trust. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:01 pm
And while the filing location and/or the A or B classification was often not in need of extensive analysis, in today’s environment, it is. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 8:01 pm
And while the filing location and/or the A or B classification was often not in need of extensive analysis, in today’s environment, it is. [read post]
4 Feb 2014, 5:01 pm
And while the filing location and/or the A or B classification was often not in need of extensive analysis, in today’s environment, it is. [read post]
25 Jan 2014, 8:58 am
Non-formal writings could be Wills under the Revised provisions governing the administration of estates and trusts in New Jersey. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am
The court ruled that under California law, both the common law and statutory business judgment rule applied only to directors, not officers, and therefore the court refused to dismiss the lawsuit. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 12:57 am
The court ruled that under California law, both the common law and statutory business judgment rule applied only to directors, not officers, and therefore the court refused to dismiss the lawsuit. [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 1:33 am
It is excess Side A coverage above the company’s traditional D&O tower (which itself has Side A coverage, Side B Company Reimbursement Coverage, and Side C Corporate Entity coverage imbedded therein). [read post]
22 Jan 2014, 1:33 am
It is excess Side A coverage above the company’s traditional D&O tower (which itself has Side A coverage, Side B Company Reimbursement Coverage, and Side C Corporate Entity coverage imbedded therein). [read post]
