It is trite law that an executor administering a deceased persons’ estate has an obligation to account to the beneficiaries. The law is a bit more complex when an attorney for property is applying to the court to account for his/her administration of an incapable person’s affairs.
Rule 74.18(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service of the application material is required on persons who have “a contingent or vested interest in the estate”. Because a will speaks as if it was made immediately prior to the death of a testator, a beneficiary has no financial interest until the testator dies, the result being that in an accounting for the administration of the assets of an incapable person, only the incapable person him/herself has a contingent or vested interest in the assets.
Although it may seem inadequate that an attorney would be required to serve the grantor and no other family members, as an incapable person will arguably not have the wherewithal to level objections in respect of the administration, keep in mind that the welfare of the grantor is already being safeguarded by the Public Guardian and Trustee (who must also be served with the court material) and a litigation guardian who may be appointed within the context of the accounting application to protect the interests of the grantor.
Couple the above with the strict duty of confidentiality and privacy owed to an incapable person by the attorney, as set out in the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 (Regulation 100/96), and we have a protective framework when dealing with disclosure of financial affairs of living persons.
This makes total sense to me. However, it may come as an unwelcome surprise to an adult child who, for instance, learns that she does not have an automatic right to receive disclosure of her incapable parents’ finances. Feeling unfairly shut out, she may consider seeking the court’s assistance.
Although she can apply to the court for leave to compel an accounting, the prevailing view of the court is that a person’s privacy is paramount such that leave should be granted sparingly. In a prior blog on the subject, my colleague Umair Abdul Qadir cited the Groh v Steele decision, where the Court makes an important pronouncement on this point, stressing that leave should not be granted absent the applicant establishing an interest (at least indirectly) in the affairs of the grantor, and some evidence that the attorney is not properly handling the administration.
Thanks for reading and have a great day,
Some other blog posts on this and related subjects that may appeal to you are:
Attorneyship Accounting with a Capable Grantor
Abuse of a power of attorney: when good people do bad things
Passings of Accounts and Serving the Public Guardian and Trustee