Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-jwnkl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T02:58:46.081Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assets of East Europeans Impounded in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2019

Martin Domke
Martin Domke*
Affiliation:
New York University School of Law
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Americans who have emigrated from Eastern European countries often provide for testamentary legacies to relatives still residing in the "old country." Foreign residents are sometimes the legal heirs when Americans die without leaving wills. Since it is common knowledge that money sent to Eastern Europe, to Communist-controlled countries, can not be fully and freely used by the beneficiaries, American courts are frequently required to decide what to do with the legacy. They must recognize that it was the intention of the deceased Americans that their beneficiaries receive a fair share of an estate, often earned in the United States through lifelong hard work by the former emigrees, a share corresponding to the true purchasing power of the dollar, yet they have to recognize the situation that may occur if the legacies are transmitted abroad.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Slavic and East European Review , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , October 1959 , pp. 351 - 360
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies 1959

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 N. Y. Surrogate's Court Act, §269, as amended.

2 See Austin Heyman, “The Nonresident Alien's Right to Succession under the Iron Curtain Rule,” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 52, No 2 (May-June, 1957) pp. 221- 240.

3 In re Alexandroff's Estate, 61 N.Y.S.2d 866 (May 22, 1945). It may be noted that the case was decided before the end of the war.

4 In re Adzericha's Estate, 61 N.Y.S.2d 867 (1945); See also In re Landau's Estate, 66 N.Y.S.2d 16(1946).

5 31 Code of Federal Regulations §211.3(a), as amended (Supplement of 1957).

6 Residents of the Soviet Union, to whom California property was bequeathed, could not participate in the estate because of lack of reciprocal rights of inheritance, as required by California succession law. In re Nersisian's Estate, 318 P. 2d 168 (Cal. App. 1957). However, the capacity of foreigners to participate in U.S.S.R. estates was asserted by G. T. Tscheburachin, Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo, No. 8 (1958), p. 115.

7 In re Sobko Estate, 88 Pa. District and County Courts 76, 77 (1954).

8 In re Zupko Estate, Philadelphia Orphans Court, December 12, 1958, 27 U. S. Law Week 2330 (1959).

9 Matter of Henry von der Heid, New York Law Journal, November 25, 1958, p. 15, col. 1.

10 Estate of Sidney R. Sharen, New York Law Journal, January 26, 1956, p. 7, col. 7.

11 In re Shapiro's Estate, 112 N.Y.S.2d 46 (1952).

12 In re Perlinsky's Estate, 115 N.Y.S.2d 549, 552 (1952).

13 Matter of Mazarowski, 331 Mass. 33 (1953).

14 In re Braier's Estate, 305 N. Y. 148 (1953). The alleged violation of private propertyprotection by the U. S. Constitution was refuted, 305 N. Y. 691 (1953). The U. S. Supreme Court to whom application was made in view of the ‘international implications’ of the question, especially as to treaty-rights of foreign nationals, refused to consider the issues, for lack of a “substantial lederal question,” 346 U. S. 802 (1953).

15 In re Well's Estate, 126 N.Y.S.2d 441, 449 (1953).

16 Matter of Getream, 107 N.Y.S.2d 225, 226 (1951).

17 In re Url, 5 N. J. 507 (1950).

18 Pilchcr v. Dezzo, 262 Alabama 249 (1955).

19 In re Volencki's Estate, 114 A. 2d 26, 27 (Mercer County Court, N. J . 1955).

20 Matter of Geiger, 175 N.Y.S.2d 588 (June 26, 1958).

21 In re Well's Estate, 126 N.Y.S.2d 441, 449 (1953).

22 In re Klein's Estate, 123 N.Y.S.2d 866 (1952).

23 Matter of Herz, 163 N.Y.S.2d 349 (1957), and Matter of Geiger, supra n. 20.

24 Matters of Herz and Geiger, 178 N.Y.S.2d 69 (September 22, 1958).

25 In re Herz’ Will, 181 N.Y.S.2d 108 (December 10, 1958).

26 Department of State Bulletin XXXVI, No. 939 (June 24, 1957), p. 1003.

27 Cf. Zygmunt Nagorski, Sr., “The Legislation of the Polish People's Republic 1945- 1957,” in Law in Eastern Europe II, 9 (Documentation Office for East-European law, University of Leyden, A. W. Sijthoff, Publishers, Leyden, Netherlands, 1958).

28 In re Doktor's Will, 183 N.Y.S.2d 60 (February 25, 1959).

29 Ibid., p. 62. On the Pekao Trading Corp. , see Hearings, infra n. 31, p. 4665 (1957).

30 Alfred L. Margolis, “Beneficiaries behind the Iron Curtain,” Western Reserve Law Review, Vol. 7 (March 1956) pp. 179-186, at 181.

31 Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States (Attempts to Seize Insurance Benefits). Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary. U. S. Senate, 85th Congress, First Session, Part 85, October 2, 1957, p. 4754 (1958). See Wilbur De Young, “The American Dollar and the Iron Curtain Countries,” The Detroit Lawyer, Vol. 24 (1956) p. 15.

32 Statement prepared by William Harvey Reeves, N. Y.

33 Estate of John Aras, Philadelphia Orphan's Court, The Evening Bulletin, April 23, 1959, p. 20, col. 5.

34 Jacob Paulink Estate, No. 368981, July 31, 1958.

35 As noted in Journal du Droit International (Clunet) Vol. 84, No. 3 (July-September, 1957), p. 712, to In re Siegler's Will, 284 App. Div. 436 (1954), concerning Hungarian legatees.

36 The measures were of “the effect of disinheriting innocent persons who have the misfortune of living under Communist rule,” Jacob Chaitkin, “The Rights of Residents of Russia and its Satellites to Share in Estates of American Decedents,” Southern California Law Review Vol. 25 (April, 1952), p. 297-317, at 317.

37 For a critical comment, see Martin Domke, American-German Private Law Relations, Cases 1945-1955 (Parker School of Foreign and Comparative Law, Columbia University, New York, 1956), p. 48.

38 E.g. In re Helbert Wagg & Co., Ltd. (1956) 1 All England Law Reports 129, where it was said that courts “must recognize the right of every foreign state to protect its economy by measures of foreign exchange control and by altering the value of its currency.” It may be remembered that under the practice of Nazi Germany the value of some blocked marks was only between six and four per cent of the official rate (see references in Domke, supra n. 37, p. 35, notes 152-160).

39 Virginia V. Meekison, “Treaty Provisions for the Inheritance of Personal Property,” American Journal of International Law vol. 44, No. 2 (April, 1950), p. 313-32.