A claim to enforce an alleged contract to provide a beneficial entitlement in a will was recently denied in De Angelis v. Siermy, 2022 BCSC 31, affirmed at De Angelis v. Siermy, 2022 BCCA 401.

In this case, a niece asserted entitled to her aunt’s estate in exchange for (what she claimed was) years of unpaid service.

In 2002, the aunt’s will left most of her estate to the niece. In 2011, the aunt executed a subsequent will changing her main beneficiary.

The niece had no witnesses in support of her position. Rather, the niece relied upon three letters, allegedly written by the aunt, in a bid to prove the existence of the contract. The aunt admitted that she wrote the first letter; however, the Court concluded that the plaintiff forged the second and third letters. The Court concluded that there was no contract.

A disappointed beneficiary has various options in cases where services are rendered in expectation of an entitlement under a Will. Proprietary estoppel, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit claims are the most common means of asserting an entitlement in an estate where services are rendered in exchange for a promise to receive an entitlement in an estate. In this case, unjust enrichment was advanced as an alternative basis for the claim. This claim failed as well.

The takeaway from this case appears to be that, by leading fraudulent evidence in support of one cause of action, a plaintiff undermined the prospects for success of any alternative claims.

Thanks for reading.

David Morgan Smith