- 9 -
On February 23, 1988, Mr. Newman wrote a letter to decedent.
Mr. Newman acknowledged receiving decedent’s letters dated
February 19 and 22. Mr. Newman briefly reviewed the 1988
proposed will. Mr. Newman raised one major problem with the 1988
proposed will--some of the witnesses were beneficiaries under the
1988 proposed will and the 1988 proposed will might not be upheld
under New York law. Mr. Newman recommended that two “uninvolved”
witnesses be used when the new wills were executed. Mr. Newman
also informed decedent that he would “have the estate reducing
figures and possible tax related suggestions” to decedent soon.
Mr. Newman provided decedent with his tax identification number.
On February 25, 1988, decedent wrote a letter to Mr. Newman.
Decedent advised Mr. Newman that he (decedent) wrote the 1988
proposed will in order to “cancel” his then-current will drafted
by the law firm in Buffalo, New York, and so he could wave it in
the law firm’s face. Decedent wrote: “I do not pretend to teach
anyone Law. But, protected as I am from an avalanche of law
books, it is sometimes easier for me to see Justice and Intent
than might be true of a lawyer.” Decedent continued by
“explaining” the law to Mr. Newman. Decedent concluded the
letter:
As I say, I do not want us to get into a debate
about Law. Frankly, it is too disgusting a subject for
an old man to waste time on. And I wanted mainly to
void the Wills MacLeod had, and I think I did just
that.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011