Tag: advance

20 Apr

What Evidence is needed to Rebut the Presumption of Resulting Trust?

Rebecca Rauws Estate Litigation Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

When a parent transfers assets to an adult child, the rebuttable presumption of resulting trust will apply to that transfer. Unless the child can rebut the presumption, it will be presumed that the child was holding the transferred assets in trust for the parent.

But what kind of evidence will be needed to rebut the presumption? Ideally there would be some kind of documentation made contemporaneously with the transfer to support the parent’s intention. If the documentation is lacking, there may be evidentiary issues where the parent has passed away or is incapable, and is not able to give evidence as to his or her intention at the time of the transfer.

In the recent decision of Pandke Estate v Lauzon, 2021 ONSC 123, the court considered two cheques paid by a mother, Carol, to her adult son and daughter-in-law, Steven and Marnee, in the amounts of $35,000.00 and $90,000.00, respectively, shortly before her death. The court reviewed the evidence in determining whether the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted, or whether Carol had intended the cheques to be gifts.

Carol was diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer in 2017, and died about a month following her diagnosis. At the time that she was diagnosed, she lived with her husband, William, to whom she had been married since 1992. Following her diagnosis, it was decided that Carol would move in with Steven and Marnee, as William was not physically capable of providing her the care that she would require. Shortly after moving in with Steven and Marnee, Carol provided a cheque in the amount of $35,000.00, payable to Marnee, with a note on the cheque stating that it was “For Rent”. Four days later Carol provided another cheque payable to Steven, in the amount of $90,000.00, with the note on the cheque stating “Medical Expenses”. The total value of the two cheques constituted the majority of Carol’s liquid assets. William, who was the sole beneficiary of Carol’s estate, challenged these payments following Carol’s death.

The court found that the $35,000.00 payment was intended to be a gift by Carol to Steven and Marnee. Part of the evidence on which the court’s conclusion in this regard was based was Marnee’s hearsay evidence of what Carol had told her about why she was making the payment, being that Steven had left his job to care for Carol and she did not want him to suffer financially as a result. The court found that Marnee’s hearsay evidence could be admitted, notwithstanding that it was hearsay, on the basis that it fell within a traditional exception to the hearsay rule (that the statement is adduced to demonstrate the intentions or state of mind of the declarant at the time the statement was made) and under the principled approach to hearsay evidence as it met the necessity and reliability requirements. The court also found that Marnee’s evidence was corroborated by independent evidence.

However, with respect to the $90,000.00 payment, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of resulting trust. Although the court admitted Steven’s evidence of statements made by Carol to him as to her state of mind at the time the cheque was signed, the court also raised other concerns with Steven’s evidence. For instance, the reference to “Medical Expenses” noted on the cheque was concerning, as there were no medical expenses, and the court wondered why Carol would not have simply indicated that it was a gift if that is what she intended it to be. The court was also not convinced by a statement that Steven said was made by Carol that she was making the payment because she did not want Steven to suffer financially because he had left work to care for her, given that only a few days before Carol had made the $35,000.00 payment, which paid off Steven’s truck loan, line of credit, and left around $15,000.00 cash to spare. There was also no corroborating evidence of Carol’s intention to gift the $90,000.00 amount to Steven. As a result, Steven held the $90,000.00 in trust for Carol’s estate.

Unfortunately, it is often the case that payments to adult children are challenged after the parent has died. Unless the parent has taken special care to document his or her intention in making the payment, the intention can be difficult to determine with any degree of certainty. Accordingly, a parent making a gift to an adult child should consider seeking legal advice as to the best way to document such a transfer in order to ensure that their intentions will be upheld. From the opposite perspective, if a parent wants to make a transfer on the basis that their adult child will hold the asset in trust for him or her, or his or her estate, the parent should also consider seeking legal advice to ensure that this is properly documented in order to reduce the chance of issues arising in this regard after his or her death.

Thanks for reading,

Rebecca Rauws

 

You may also enjoy these other blog posts:

23 Mar

Advance Directives: Do Not Resuscitate Orders

Hull & Hull LLP Estate & Trust, General Interest, In the News Tags: , , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

One form of Advance Directive is the Do Not Resuscitate Order, commonly referred to as a DNR Order, or simply a DNR. It is a written order, signed by a medical professional, indicating one’s desire that lifesaving measures not be initiated if one were to stop breathing or if one’s heart has stopped. A DNR Order is generally only put in place when a person is suffering from a serious, often terminal condition, and when ‘CPR will almost certainly not benefit the patient and is not part of the plan of treatment’.

Up until February 2008, an odd, but not insignificant loophole existed that prevented paramedics and firefighters from honouring any existing DNR while a person was being provided with emergency assistance on the scene, or while in transport to a medical facility. The Ambulance Act’s Basic Life Support Patient Care Standards, Version 2 meant that paramedics were legally obliged to initiate life support measures, including, but not limited to, chest compressions, artificial ventilation, and intubation. Perhaps 911 had been called in order for the person to be transported to a hospital to be rehydrated, or to be treated for an infection. Prior to February 2008, if something catastrophic were to thereafter unfold en route, emergency resuscitation measures would have been initiated, possibly with unimaginable consequences, even if a DNR order was provided to the paramedics or firefighters on-site.

In order to address this disconnect between personal wishes, best intentions and legal constraints, a DNR Task Force was struck in 2003. As a result, there is a new Do Not Resuscitate Confirmation Form that became the new standard in Ontario as of February 1, 2008. Once completed by a physician or nurse, the form authorizes paramedics and firefighters to withhold life support measures, as well as to provide palliative comfort care measures such as suctioning, oxygen, pain control (including morphine) and tranquilizers. This form can be viewed online here.

Jennifer Hartman, guest blogger

 

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
 

CONNECT WITH US

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET