Faire Logo
BlogSell on Faire
Join free
Faire Logo
Skip to main content

First Will Of A Soviet: Citizen Probated In The United States

The court’s decision, handed down in 1968, was a masterstroke of pragmatic jurisprudence. Relying on the long-established principle that the validity of a will is governed by the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of death (or the law of the situs of personal property), the Surrogate’s Court held that Zilberstein had been a legal resident of New York. His Soviet citizenship was irrelevant to his capacity to make a will concerning property located in the United States. New York law required only that the testator be of sound mind and over eighteen—conditions Zilberstein clearly met. The court explicitly rejected any doctrine of "enemy alien" incapacity, noting that while the United States and the Soviet Union were ideological rivals, they were not in a declared war that would trigger the Trading with the Enemy Act’s inheritance restrictions.

Yet, the case also revealed enduring limits. The probate did not grant U.S. courts any jurisdiction over property in the USSR. A Soviet citizen could leave their American bank account to an American friend, but their Moscow apartment remained subject exclusively to Soviet inheritance law, which often gave priority to state claims. Moreover, the ruling did not resolve the reverse situation: for decades, U.S. courts remained hostile to enforcing inheritance claims by Soviet citizens against American estates, citing fears of currency control violations. The Zilberstein precedent was thus asymmetrical—it protected the rights of Soviet citizens to dispose of American assets but did not compel American courts to send money into the Soviet system. first will of a soviet citizen probated in the united states

The diplomatic dimension was equally striking. The Soviet Consulate was notified, as required by law for the estate of a foreign national. To the surprise of many, the Soviet government did not intervene. In a terse diplomatic note, Moscow indicated that it had no claim to Zilberstein’s property, as he had acquired it through his own labor while residing abroad—an implicit, grudging concession that not all property of a Soviet citizen automatically belonged to the collective. This non-intervention was a tacit acknowledgment that private, foreign-held assets of Soviet citizens could be alienated under U.S. law. Some legal historians speculate that the USSR, eager to protect the assets of its own diplomats and trade representatives in the West, saw strategic value in not challenging the probate. The court’s decision, handed down in 1968, was

Languages

EN

The court’s decision, handed down in 1968, was a masterstroke of pragmatic jurisprudence. Relying on the long-established principle that the validity of a will is governed by the law of the testator’s domicile at the time of death (or the law of the situs of personal property), the Surrogate’s Court held that Zilberstein had been a legal resident of New York. His Soviet citizenship was irrelevant to his capacity to make a will concerning property located in the United States. New York law required only that the testator be of sound mind and over eighteen—conditions Zilberstein clearly met. The court explicitly rejected any doctrine of "enemy alien" incapacity, noting that while the United States and the Soviet Union were ideological rivals, they were not in a declared war that would trigger the Trading with the Enemy Act’s inheritance restrictions.

Yet, the case also revealed enduring limits. The probate did not grant U.S. courts any jurisdiction over property in the USSR. A Soviet citizen could leave their American bank account to an American friend, but their Moscow apartment remained subject exclusively to Soviet inheritance law, which often gave priority to state claims. Moreover, the ruling did not resolve the reverse situation: for decades, U.S. courts remained hostile to enforcing inheritance claims by Soviet citizens against American estates, citing fears of currency control violations. The Zilberstein precedent was thus asymmetrical—it protected the rights of Soviet citizens to dispose of American assets but did not compel American courts to send money into the Soviet system.

The diplomatic dimension was equally striking. The Soviet Consulate was notified, as required by law for the estate of a foreign national. To the surprise of many, the Soviet government did not intervene. In a terse diplomatic note, Moscow indicated that it had no claim to Zilberstein’s property, as he had acquired it through his own labor while residing abroad—an implicit, grudging concession that not all property of a Soviet citizen automatically belonged to the collective. This non-intervention was a tacit acknowledgment that private, foreign-held assets of Soviet citizens could be alienated under U.S. law. Some legal historians speculate that the USSR, eager to protect the assets of its own diplomats and trade representatives in the West, saw strategic value in not challenging the probate.