[naturaherbal]

NOW the fight begins.

Astor’s Guardians Challenge Her Later Wills,
Citing Incompetency
NY TIMES
By SERGE F. KOVALESKI
August 16, 2007
The court-appointed guardians of Brooke Astor have filed legal papers saying that the will she signed in 1997 should be the valid one. They argue that she was not mentally competent or was unduly influenced when she signed her last will in 2002 and several amendments to it over the following two years, according to people who have been briefed on the situation.
The petitions for the first time raise questions about Mrs. Astor’s competency at least as far back as February 2001, about two months before her 99th birthday.
The guardians, JPMorgan Chase & Company and Mrs. Astor’s longtime friend Annette de la Renta filed the papers in Westchester County Surrogate’s Court on Tuesday, the day after Mrs. Astor died at 105. The documents, which were not made public yesterday, also challenge a will that Mrs. Astor signed on Feb. 2, 2001, and an amendment dated Nov. 7 of that year, two of the people briefed said.
Additionally, the bank and Mrs. de la Renta are asking the judge to appoint them as co-administrators of Mrs. Astor’s estate, valued at more than $130 million, in addition to a trust estimated to be worth over $60 million.
Mrs. Astor’s 2002 will was at the center of a legal battle among family members for much of last year. It was started by a petition filed by one of her grandsons, Philip Marshall, 54, in State Supreme Court. He accused his father, Anthony D. Marshall, 83, Mrs. Astor’s son, of neglecting her care while enriching himself with her wealth.
Under Mrs. Astor’s 1997 will, signed on Jan. 8 of that year and amended 16 days later, Anthony Marshall was a principal beneficiary of her fortune. But he was to receive significantly more of her residuary estate in the 2002 will, and even more under a later amendment that modified the will in early 2004, according to a person familiar with both wills.
Mrs. de la Renta’s lawyer, Paul C. Saunders, declined to comment yesterday on any specifics related to Mrs. Astor’s wills. But he said that the application to be named co-administrators — whose duties are similar to those of an executor — “makes sense because both my client and the bank had been appointed as guardians.”
He added, “Whoever the administrator is will have the fiduciary responsibility to marshal the assets and distribute them in accordance with the will, subject to court supervision.”
He said Mrs. de la Renta wanted to serve as an administrator “out of respect for Mrs. Astor. For the same reason that she agreed to become guardian.”
A spokeswoman for JPMorgan Chase, which had been the guardian of Mrs. Astor’s assets, declined to comment.
Anthony Marshall’s lawyer, Kenneth E. Warner, said yesterday: “We will vigorously oppose the application being made by Ms. de la Renta and JPMorgan Chase. It’s important that the Surrogate’s Court appoint someone who is independent, impartial and fair-minded, and Ms. de la Renta and JPMorgan Chase are unsuitable and unqualified.” He added, “The attempt by Ms. de la Renta and Chase to go back to 1997 for a will is absurd.”
The person familiar with the 1997 will said that in it, half of Mrs. Astor’s residuary estate — whatever is left after all bequests have been paid — was to go to a special trust for her son and that he was to receive 5 percent a year of the fair market value. By comparison, Mr. Marshall was to get 7 percent a year of the fair market value of the entire residuary under the original terms of the 2002 will. A 2004 amendment to that will stipulated that Mr. Marshall would get the residuary outright.
The documents filed in Westchester on Tuesday contend that Mrs. Astor “was not competent to execute” any of the wills and amendments from 2001 onward or that she was “under undue influence and duress” when she did so — or both. The petition does not specify who was supposedly pressuring Mrs. Astor.
As part of a settlement last October in the case brought by Philip Marshall, Anthony Marshall and his wife, Charlene, were required to relinquish their positions as co-executors of Mrs. Astor’s estate. In exchange for Mr. Marshall giving up his broader role in his mother’s affairs, JPMorgan Chase, as a guardian, agreed not to pursue litigation to recover millions of dollars that it believes he may have improperly obtained while managing his mother’s finances.
According to terms of the settlement, any future legal claims against Mr. Marshall would be dealt with in Surrogate’s Court upon Mrs. Astor’s death and left to the discretion of an administrator of her estate, to be named by a judge.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company