- 55 -
EPTL section 11-1.5 acts as a floor on the income to be
received by beneficiaries such as decedent. While it is
not presently clear that respondent is correct, such a
formulation would eliminate the double recovery issue
raised by petitioners.
Petitioners note that the commentary in this area
states that pecuniary dispositions in trust receive income,
whereas pecuniary dispositions not in trust receive
interest. See, e.g., Covey, Marital Deduction and Credit
Shelter Dispositions and the Use of Formula Provisions, 61-
66 (1984). However, the statements offered by the
commentators are merely conclusory. These sources offer no
additional support for petitioners' argument.
Finally, petitioners assert that, even if EPTL section
11-1.5 were applicable to all testamentary dispositions,
decedent would be ineligible to receive interest under that
statute. They argue that she was coexecutor of her
husband's estate and at least acquiesced to the actions of
her son in administering the estate. Therefore, they
argue, she was at least partially responsible for the delay
in funding of the trust. Petitioners assert that, under
New York law, this involvement by Mrs. de St. Aubin would
make her ineligible for an interest award. New York law
clearly states the contrary. The New York Court of
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011