Search the leading directory for the private wealth industry

Manage your profile

Let 38,000 visitors find you. With 172,000 page views, Citywealth enables UHNW clients and charities to review your services quickly.

Upgrade profile options
close X
Bonnie Lynn Chmil

Bonnie Lynn Chmil

Partner

Specialism: Lawyers Contentious Trusts, Estate Planning

Company: Katten Muchin Rosenman

Location: New York, USA

 

What do clients and peers say of Bonnie Chmil: "Thoughtful, understanding, practical and realistic in expediting clients wishes."

 

Citywealth rating

3
Average: 3 (2 votes)
Fee Level:
3
Average: 3 (2 votes)
Quality of Advice
3
Average: 3 (2 votes)
Communications Skills
3
Average: 3 (2 votes)
Interpersonal Skills
3
Average: 3 (2 votes)
X

Please make sure you fill in all the fields marked with an asterisk *

Peer review:

"Thoughtful, understanding, practical and realistic in expediting clients wishes."

17 May 2020

Peer review:

Citywealth recommended

11 Mar 2020

Start Ratings
Written Review
Your Details
If ticked your name and company will not be shown under your review of this person. However, entering your details is essential, as we will not publish any review we cannot verify. Please note you are not allowed to rate or review individuals who work for the same company as yourself.

Your personal data is used for internal purposes only and is never sold or shared. For any enquiries, please email assistant editor April French at afrenchfurnell@citywealthmag.com

next >
< back

Bonnie Lynn Chmil is a partner in the Private Wealth practice at Katten. She advises high-net-worth individuals and families as well as fiduciary trust companies and banks and other companies that offer trust and private wealth services in high-stakes litigation. She balances her extensive experience in commercial and real estate litigation with a sensitivity to the needs and expectations of private clients and fiduciaries. From the outset of any dispute, she collaborates with the Private Wealth team to prevent fights before they happen through integrated planning, administration and risk assessment. When litigation ensues, she guides her clients toward satisfactory resolutions by creating win-win settlement opportunities, and teams with the Private Wealth group to create planning opportunities as part of a settlement that would not have been available absent litigation.  Private client and fiduciary litigation, of course, is often fueled by emotions that are frequently not commercially rational.  In resolving disputes, she works collaboratively with clients to determine what needs to be addressed in order to assuage hurt feelings, allow reason to prevail over retribution, and wherever possible restore family harmony. 

2020 

Bonnie Lynn Chmil currently has no Citywealth award

Bonnie Lynn Chmil currently has not indicated their average client size

Bonnie Lynn Chmil currently has not indicated if they have a fixed fee offering

Peer review:

"Thoughtful, understanding, practical and realistic in expediting clients wishes."

17 May 2020

Peer review:

Citywealth recommended

11 Mar 2020

Start Ratings
Written Review
Your Details
If ticked your name and company will not be shown under your review of this person. However, entering your details is essential, as we will not publish any review we cannot verify. Please note you are not allowed to rate or review individuals who work for the same company as yourself.

Your personal data is used for internal purposes only and is never sold or shared. For any enquiries, please email assistant editor April French at afrenchfurnell@citywealthmag.com

Bonnie Lynn Chmil currently has no reviews

Successful defence of a contested will

My partner, Joshua Rubenstein and I, obtained an extremely favorable decision from the Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County on behalf of the executors of an estate of a prominent real estate entrepreneur in New York.  He died with a gross estate of $280 million, the bulk of which was left to his wife in a QTIP trust, the remainder of which would pass to a son from his first marriage and two sons from his second marriage upon her death. His other two children from his first marriage, for whom he made bequests of $2 million each and substantial additional provisions outside of his will, filed a claim against the estate, seeking in excess of $85 million, based on the decedent’s alleged breach of an obligation in a separation agreement with his first wife to make a bequest in his will to the children of that marriage of a sum equal to one-third of his net estate and of his coin collection. Their claim was based on their belief that the bequests were to be divided equally among the children of   the first marriage and had to be made outright and not in a remainder interest, and also was inflated by their theories that their brother had irrevocably waived his claim with respect to the decedent’s obligations under the separation agreement, entitling them to the entire one-third of the net estate, and that they were “contract creditors” against whom taxes could not be apportioned and entitling them to 9% prejudgment interest from the date of death. On the petitioners’ motion and our cross-motion for partial summary judgment, the court held that the petitioners were not entitled to their brother’s share of one-third of the net estate because their brother had effectively retracted his waiver of the decedent’s performance under the separation agreement, and that the separation agreement permitted the decedent to make a bequest to one or more of such children as a remainder beneficiary of a trust and, more significantly, did not require that the bequests be made in equal shares among the children. The court further held that the petitioners are not contract creditors but merely have a right in equity to enforce the decedent’s obligation, and therefore, to the extent the court ultimately determined that the decedent breached his obligation to bequeath one-third of his estate to these children and that the petitioners were entitled to enforce that obligation to the extent of any shortfall, the petitioners would be requires they pay their pro rata share of any estate taxes.  This decision dramatically reduced the likelihood of any potential recovery by petitioners of any share at all of the coin collection and any shortfall in the decedent’s bequest of one-third of his net estate.  As a result, the matter ultimately settled at a small fraction of what the petitioners had been seeking.