News & Resources

Attorney General Helps Rescue Endangered Charitable Bequest

Bequests in the News

How collaboration can protect charitable bequests

In 1998, Hanlon transferred title to her New York real estate (House) into a trust and directed that 40% of its value pass in small shares to several charities (Charities) at her death. The trust specified that its provisions would prevail over a later will only if the will expressly amended the trust.

In 2001, Hanlon hired Dinnal as a home health aide. Ten years later, in 2011, Hanlon wrote a will that included a bequest of the House to Dinnal. A few months later, Hanlon died. A legal battle of more than a decade ensued, centering mostly on Dinnal’s claim of ownership of the House.

The 2011 will did not mention the trust. The lawyer who drafted the will never even knew the trust existed. Dinnal, through counsel, presented numerous arguments to support her claim to the House, some colorable and others preposterous. (One of the latter was the assertion that the 2011 will was a de facto deed and that Dinnal already owned the House, a position that the court labelled as “pure nonsense.”) In the meantime, the New York State Attorney General (AG) represented the Charities and did so effectively. As it now stands, the proceeds from the sale of the House will pass as per the trust, so the Charities will benefit.

This case has been the subject of several decisions. The most recent, which references the earlier ones, is Matter of Planty as Trustee of Hanlon Family Trust, 81 Misc.3d 1234(A) (Surr.Ct.Queens 2024).

This case is a splendid example of the wisdom of similarly situated charities acting as a unit to protect bequests. Savvy challengers frequently calculate that the beneficiary of a small fractional interest will not finance a vigorous defense. A group effort in such a case is often the only feasible path to success.

In this case, the Charities had the benefit of representation by an initiative-taking government agency. Although most AG offices have the authority to intervene in charitable bequest cases, the sheer volume of litigation precludes such participation in every case. However, the “unified front” approach is possible if a law firm represents a group of aligned charitable beneficiaries at a reasonable shared cost or, even better, for a modest contingent fee.

This article was originally published on our LinkedIn on July 9, 2024.