Posts tagged "1106917"

Roth v. Newpol, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-069-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-715                                        Appeals Court   ROBERT ROTH[1]  vs.  JOSEPH NEWPOL, executor,[2] & another.[3]     No. 16-P-715.   Suffolk.     March 15, 2017. – May 31, 2017.   Present:  Grainger, Massing, & Desmond, JJ.     Devise and Legacy, Residuary interests, Intestacy, Construction against intestacy.  Real Property, Tenancy in common.  Words, “Monies.”       Complaint filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on January 23, 2014.   The case was heard by Virginia M. Ward, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Rebecca P. McIntyre for the defendants. Michael C. Fee (Scott M. Zanolli also present) for the plaintiff.     MASSING, J.  The only issue in this appeal is whether a residuary clause in the last will and testament of Evelyn Shakir, disposing of “any monies remaining in [her] estate,” encompassed her one-half interest in the house in the West Roxbury section of Boston (property) where her brother, Philip Shakir, lived before his death.  The plaintiff, representing Philip’s estate, contends that Evelyn’s will did not devise her interest in the property and, therefore, that it passed by intestate succession to Philip, her only heir.[4]  The defendants — Joseph Newpol, who is Evelyn’s executor, and her life partner, George Ellenbogen — contend that Evelyn’s one-half share in the property passed to Ellenbogen through the will’s residuary clause.  On cross motions for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s complaint to quiet title, a judge of the Probate and Family Court held that Evelyn died intestate as to her interest in the property, that Philip acquired Evelyn’s interest by intestate succession, and that Philip’s estate now possesses sole legal title to the property.  We affirm. Background.  The property consists of the family home where Evelyn and Philip grew up.  When their mother died in 1990, they each inherited a one-half interest in the property as tenants in common.  Philip, who lived with his mother until her death, continued to reside at the property for the remainder of his life. Evelyn and Ellenbogen were English professors and writers.  In 1988, they bought a house in West Roxbury, where they lived together until Evelyn’s death in 2010.  Ellenbogen drafted Evelyn’s will using a model that a colleague had provided to him.  Evelyn executed the will about six weeks before she died.  Philip died approximately two years later, in 2012. The will.  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - June 9, 2017 at 6:31 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,

Roth v. Newpol, et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-069-17)

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us   16-P-715                                        Appeals Court   ROBERT ROTH[1]  vs.  JOSEPH NEWPOL, executor,[2] & another.[3]     No. 16-P-715.   Suffolk.     March 15, 2017. – May 31, 2017.   Present:  Grainger, Massing, & Desmond, JJ.     Devise and Legacy, Residuary interests, Intestacy, Construction against intestacy.  Real Property, Tenancy in common.  Words, “Monies.”       Complaint filed in the Suffolk Division of the Probate and Family Court Department on January 23, 2014.   The case was heard by Virginia M. Ward, J., on motions for summary judgment.     Rebecca P. McIntyre for the defendants. Michael C. Fee (Scott M. Zanolli also present) for the plaintiff.     MASSING, J.  The only issue in this appeal is whether a residuary clause in the last will and testament of Evelyn Shakir, disposing of “any monies remaining in [her] estate,” encompassed her one-half interest in the house in the West Roxbury section of Boston (property) where her brother, Philip Shakir, lived before his death.  The plaintiff, representing Philip’s estate, contends that Evelyn’s will did not devise her interest in the property and, therefore, that it passed by intestate succession to Philip, her only heir.[4]  The defendants — Joseph Newpol, who is Evelyn’s executor, and her life partner, George Ellenbogen — contend that Evelyn’s one-half share in the property passed to Ellenbogen through the will’s residuary clause.  On cross motions for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s complaint to quiet title, a judge of the Probate and Family Court held that Evelyn died intestate as to her interest in the property, that Philip acquired Evelyn’s interest by intestate succession, and that Philip’s estate now possesses sole legal title to the property.  We affirm. Background.  The property consists of the family home where Evelyn and Philip grew up.  When their mother died in 1990, they each inherited a one-half interest in the property as tenants in common.  Philip, who lived with his mother until her death, continued to reside at the property for the remainder of his life. Evelyn and Ellenbogen were English professors and writers.  In 1988, they bought a house in West Roxbury, where they lived together until Evelyn’s death in 2010.  Ellenbogen drafted Evelyn’s will using a model that a colleague had provided to him.  Evelyn executed the will about six weeks before she died.  Philip died approximately two years later, in 2012. The will.  […]

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - May 31, 2017 at 4:16 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,