Contact Us for More Information

Battle Over NY Brownstone Highlights Inheritance Issues for Same Sex Partners

Posted by Paul D. Woodard | Nov 02, 2016 | 0 Comments

Signing 20a 20will

Bill Cornwell and Tom Doyle lived in a brownstone in the West Village of Manhattan for more than 50 years. Cornwell was the sole owner of the four-unit apartment building. However, about ten years ago, Cornwell wrote a will leaving all of his belongings to his partner Doyle, including the brownstone. Cornwell died in 2014 at the age of 88. Doyle expected to continue to live in the home they shared; however, he learned the will Cornwell prepared was not legally valid. Now, he has taken his case to court against Cornwell's descendants.

Cornwell and Doyle were artists who began living in the West Village in the mid-1960s. In those days, many parts of New York were crime-ridden and filled with dilapidated old buildings. Now the West Village carries some of the most expensive real estate properties in the country. The brownstone at the center of this inheritance claim is under contract to be sold for more than $7 million.

Cornwell's will provided that all of his possessions, including the three-story brownstone, would go to his longtime partner. However, under New York law, for a will to be legally valid, it has to be witnessed by two people. Cornwell's will was only witnessed by one other person. Without a valid will invalidated, Cornwell's assets are set to be distributed to his next of kin, in this case, two nieces and two nephews as Cornwell and Doyle were not legally married.

Under the California Probate Code, for a will to be valid, it generally has to be witnessed by two people. However, there are exceptions, including cases where a holographic will is written in the handwriting of the testator, or if clear and convincing evidence establishes that at the time the testator signed the will, they intended the document to constitute their will.

According to Carole DiMaio, one of Cornwell's nieces, “he had 50 years to put Tom's name on any of these papers.” DiMaio claims that because her uncle never took the steps necessary to legally pass the property on to Doyle, and never went through with a legal marriage, he never intended to give the property to Doyle after he died.

For most of the time Cornwell and Doyle lived together, same-sex marriage in New York was illegal. It was not until 2011 that New York passed the Marriage Equality Act. However, according to Doyle, around that time they'd purchased silver wedding rings but never got around to going through with the ceremony.

Lawyers representing the nieces and nephews claim they offered to let Doyle stay in his apartment for 5 years for $10 a month rent. He would have also received $250,000 from the sale of the building. Instead, Doyle says there should be no question that he is the legitimate owner.

Tom Doyle is now suing the nieces and nephews in Manhattan's Surrogate's Court. The Surrogate's Court handles probate and estate proceedings in New York. Doyle is claiming that he is Cornwell's common law spouse. New York, like most states, including California, does not recognize common law marriage. However, Doyle's argument is that Pennsylvania law should apply because the couple visited the state in 1991 to buy their dog Bingo, and Pennsylvania recognized common law marriage until 2005. Only time will tell how this situation is resolved by the courts. Nevertheless, this situation highlights the importance of proper estate planning to ensure your wishes are properly taken care of following your death.

If you have any questions about estate planning, creating a will, or whether a relationship may constitute common law marriage, contact Butterfield Schechter LLP. We will answer all of your questions and make sure your estate plan will provide for your loved ones and keep your best interests at heart. Contact our office today with any questions.

About the Author

Paul D. Woodard

Paul Woodard practices in the areas of Employee Benefits, Employee Stock Ownership Plans, Pension and Profit Sharing Plans, ERISA, ERISA Litigation, Business Law, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs), and Estate Planning.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment

Retirement Plans

We help establish a customized plan that meets regulatory requirements as a tax qualified plan. Following implementation, our attorneys can assist clients and their plan administrator with regular reviews and updates to help with regulatory compliance for the plan's operation, and continued effectiveness in meeting the client's specific goals.


We are dedicated to employee ownership. When you come to us for ESOP services, you receive influential legal counsel who stand beside you to help you stay informed, in compliance, and abreast of the latest developments-all to help you realize your plan goals as fully and effectively as possible.


A QDRO is a specially designed court order that is required for the division of retirement benefits in a family law case. Many family law attorneys do not possess the expertise necessary to divide retirement benefits or stock options upon divorce. We have extensive experience in dividing qualified plans, government plans, IRAs and stock options between the employee spouse and non-employee spouse.

Butterfield Schechter LLP provides the information in this website as a service to its clients and visitors to the site. This website is for information purposes only and is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. The information in this website is provided "as is," and while the information in this website is updated periodically, additional facts or future developments may affect subjects contained herein, and no guarantee is given that the information provided is correct, complete, or up-to-date. Seek the advice of professional counsel before acting or relying upon any article, form, or information in this web site. To ensure compliance with the requirements imposed by the United States Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any federal tax advice contained in this communication is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another person any transaction or matter addressed herein. Butterfield Schechter LLP has endeavored to comply with all known legal and ethical requirements in compiling this website. In the event that this communication does not conform with any laws or regulations of any state or country in which it may be received, Butterfield Schechter LLP will not accept legal representation based on this communication from a person in such a state or country. Electronic mail is provided as a convenience in communicating with the attorneys at Butterfield Schechter LLP. Contact by e-mail does not alone create an attorney-client relationship. Please remember Internet e-mail is not secure and messages sent to the firm or any of its employees or attorneys should not contain sensitive or confidential information. Thank you for visiting our site.