Tag: estate and trust
I recently came across this article on the Financial Times Adviser discussing estate litigation in the UK in general, and, in particular, a situation relating to the estate of Tracey Leaning. I thought the article was interesting as it touched upon a couple of topics that raised some thought-provoking points for me.
To briefly summarize, Ms. Leaning died in 2015 leaving a Will which provided that her entire estate was to be transferred to her partner, Richard, on the condition that he look after her three dogs. However, she had also made a prior Will leaving her entire estate to four charities. Somehow, the charities learned that, while they had previously been included as beneficiaries of Ms. Leaning’s estate, her last Will did not gift anything to them. They wrote to Richard to advise him that they intended to challenge the later Will. According to the article, it is not clear whether any proceedings have yet been commenced by the charities.
The first thing I wanted to touch on was the “pet trust” aspect of this situation. This topic was recently discussed in a paper by Jenny Pho of Dale & Lessmann LLP for the Law Society of Upper Canada’s Practice Gems: Probate Essentials program on September 29, 2017. The arrangement made by Ms. Leaning appears to be in the form of a cash legacy to a pet guardian, namely Richard, together with the condition precedent that Richard take care of her dogs. Generally this option for leaving money for the care of one’s pets would only be recommended if the testator trusts the chosen pet guardian to properly care for the pets, as once the funds have been bequeathed to the pet guardian, the testator loses control over how the funds can be used.
In this particular situation, Ms. Leaning not only left a specific legacy to Richard, but rather her entire estate. It is likely that, in doing so, she did not intend that her entire estate be used solely for the care of her dogs, but rather, she put her trust in Richard to care for the dogs generally, using funds from her estate as needed. According to the article, Ms. Leaning’s later Will had been prepared by Ms. Leaning herself, without seeking legal advice. However, had she not had a trusted individual to care for the dogs, the pet trust arrangements would likely have been much more complicated, and may have required legal advice in order to properly implement.
Secondly, I also found one of the alleged bases for the charities’ challenge to Ms. Leaning’s will interesting. As noted above, Ms. Leaning had allegedly prepared her later Will herself, without seeking legal advice. Additionally, the signature page of the Will, which had been stapled to the remaining pages, had apparently become detached, leading to questions as to whether there had been any additional pages that were missing at the time of Ms. Leaning’s death. If such a situation arose in Ontario, it’s not clear what the ultimate outcome would be. If the court could not determine how the Will should be interpreted based on the available pages of the Will itself, it could also consider indirect extrinsic circumstances that were known to the testator at the time the Will was made. However, as it is ultimately a question of interpretation, it would likely be up to the court to decide whether, taking all the facts into consideration, it is satisfied that the Will is complete and should govern the distribution of Ms. Leaning’s estate.
Had Ms. Leaning sought legal advice and assistance with respect to the preparation of her Will, this question would likely have been avoided by the standard use of simple page numbering to indicate that all pages are present and accounted for.
Thanks for reading,
Other blog posts that you may enjoy:
It’s 8:30 am, you’ve just entered your office, and you get a call from the common-law spouse of one of your long-term clients. It’s bad news – your client is in palliative care and has a will from 2001 that he urgently needs to update. Time is of the essence.
You and your assistant can squeeze in time late in the day to see the client at the hospital. But you know it’s a tricky situation that’s fraught with potential problems. Here are a few steps to consider that could protect you and your client before you head bedside.
- Make sure you have the expertise they need: On the initial call, be sure to ask specific questions about what the client needs done. If there are trusts or other complex arrangements involved, assess whether you have the expertise to assist. If death is imminent, the last thing your client can waste is time in trying to line up another lawyer. So do your due diligence up front.
- Assess capacity: Capacity issues could be front and centre for clients who are close to death. If possible, contact an attending doctor, explain the legal test for capacity and ask them to confirm his or her opinion in writing as soon as possible, even on an interim basis by email.
Learn more about capacity issues here: https://estatelawcanada.blogspot.ca/2010/12/when-is-doctors-opinion-on-capacity.html
- Talk one-to-one: You need, and must insist on, time alone with your client, both to do your own capacity assessment and to minimize any unsubstantiated allegations of undue influence. If the situation is at all suspicious, you have a duty to inquire to satisfy yourself that the client is fully acting on their own accord. This is especially important if the client has had multiple marriages or common-law partners, or has been estranged from family members. If you are not satisfied, you may choose to decline to act.
- Take notes and/or video: Your notes could potentially be used as evidence in a will challenge or solicitor’s negligence action, so be sure to set out the basis for your opinion on issues such as capacity and undue influence, rather than simply stating a conclusion. Consider having a junior lawyer attend with you, to provide a more complete base of evidence. Videotaping the interview may also be helpful, as it can provide important evidence if the will is ever challenged.
Finally, if you have older clients who have indicated a need to revise their will, be proactive. Send them this link and encourage them to act now to avoid the potential drama and perils of a deathbed will: http://globalnews.ca/news/1105176/the-mortality-of-deathbed-wills/
Thanks for reading,
Today’s blog is the last in my series this week touching upon certain aspects of preparation for trial/hearing in a contested passing of accounts. The items discussed this week were certainly not meant to be, nor were they, exhaustive. Preparation necessary for a hearing/trial with narrow issues, few documents, few evidentiary concerns and an uncomplicated Estate will obviously be different than a case with numerous issues, voluminous documents, evidentiary issues and a complicated administration. The critical aspect of trial preparation is that it begins at the beginning of a case; not literally, but certainly in the sense of being mindful at pre-trial stages of the evidentiary considerations and how the evidence is to be marshalled and presented.
Aside from ensuring that you have appropriate resource materials at the trial (such as texts dealing with the rules of evidence, the Rules of Civil Procedure, Probate Practice etc.), it is important to have prepared your opening and closing statements (to the extent possible), have prepared the necessary law regarding the substantive issues in dispute (casebook, factum), have addressed costs submissions (organizing offers to settle, preparing a Bill of Costs etc.), and have a trial binder with you at trial for your own use.
A trial binder may contain the pertinent materials that you would like to have at your fingertips during the trial (ie. pleadings, orders, witness lists, witness summaries, answers to undertakings, listing of the types of evidence, objections, offers to settle etc.). The trial binder will allow you to have quick access to information that you might only have a few minutes or less to locate and quickly review.
While most contested passings settle at a pre-trial stage, if a trial is necessary, success may hinge on the preparedness of the parties.
Thanks for reading.
Craig R. Vander Zee – Click here fore more information on Craig Vander Zee.
On Monday, I blogged on proving a lost or destroyed will in court: If an original will which was last traced into the possession of the testator cannot be located following the death of the testator, a rebuttable presumption arises that the testator destroyed the will with the intention of revoking it.
However, there is an additional or complicating factor worth considering. What happens when the testator regrettably looses his/her mental capacity to make, change, or revoke a will? In these circumstances, where a party alleges that the will was revoked by being destroyed by the testator when of sound mind, the burden of proof rests on the party alleging the revocation. The presumption of revocation does not apply. The party alleging revocation must satisfy the court that it is more probable than not that, while of sound mind, the testator revoked the will by destruction.
Rebutting the presumption of revocation or proving that the testator revoked his/her will by destruction where testamentary capacity is an issue can be difficult. It is obvious that proof of a lost or destroyed will is fact driven. No matter what position a party may advance in court, they will have to ensure that the proper evidentiary base is established to carry the day.
Thanks for reading.
Pursuant to section 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, the court has discretion to order a capacity assessment of an individual if the person’s capacity is an issue in a proceeding under the SDA. The court must also be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is incapable.
Where a capacity assessment has already been obtained, the court will be reluctant to order a further capacity assessment of an individual, unless the court has, for example, concerns about the lack of detail or objectivity within the assessment that has already been obtained.
In Forgione v. Forgione, the court was concerned about the adequacy of the assessment carried out by a medical doctor. The court did not know what background information the doctor had or what, if any, influence anyone other than one family member may have had on the process. The report was very brief and consisted largely of conclusions without analysis. There were a number of facts and conflicting versions of facts which, in the court’s view, warranted further examination because they raised questions about the capacity and vulnerability of the incapable. A second assessment was ordered.
I recently blogged on the lasting legacy of Cecil Rhodes. Along the same lines, the life of Alfred Nobel is worth considering.
Like most “great men”, Nobel was a bundle of contradictions. He was a successful Swedish business who is best remembered for inventing dynamite. However, he was a committed pacifist who wrote plays and novels – none of which are particularly remarkable. It was the world’s good fortune that a newspaper mistakenly printed Nobel’s obituary calling him the “merchant of death”. Nobel was horrified and turned his mind to creating a lasting legacy of peace. When he died in 1896, 94 percent of his substantial fortune went to fund an award for those whose work “conferred the greatest benefit to mankind” in physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peacemaking. In 1969, economics was added as a separate category.
Not surprisingly, Nobel’s relatives were not happy. The vague wording of his will gave them the opportunity to tie up Nobel’s estate for years in the Swedish courts. However, on the fifth anniversary of his death, the first Nobel Prizes were presented by the King of Sweden. At the time, the monetary award that accompanied the Nobel Prizes was a vast sum ($42,000). The prize is now worth close to a million dollars today. Nobel laureates are highly regarded and many are household names. It is no exaggeration to boast that the Nobel Prize is the most prestigious award in the world and a lasting legacy from the man who invented dynamite.
Welcome to my week of blogs.
The Substitute Decisions Act is silent when it comes to the issue of compensation for personal care guardians. Section 40 of the SDA addresses compensation for property guardians, but there is no corresponding provision for personal care guardians (though regard can be had to section 68(4) of the SDA).
I was recently before Brown, J. in Toronto Estates Court in respect of a request for compensation by a personal care guardian (the decision is not yet reported). The property guardian, who I represented, supported the request for compensation, but the PGT questioned the amount requested and wondered whatever happened to “natural love and affection”.
In coming to his decision, Brown, J. applied the analysis set out in Cheney v. Bryrne, which he found was applicable to claims for compensation by personal care guardians. Brown, J. also applied, by analogy, the approach applied by the court to claims for compensation by property guardians. The test regarding the reasonableness of compensation claims was set out in Re: Brown (1999), 31 E.T.R. (2d) 164 (link not available).
According to Brown, J., the evidence before him clearly demonstrated that the incapable needed the services provided by the personal care guardian. He was also satisfied that the personal care guardian was providing the services to the incapable with care and devotion and that her services were of a high quality and went well beyond what was ordinarily expected. Moreover, the incapable obviously could afford to pay for the services (not an insignificant factor). In considering the level of compensation, Brown, J. was satisfied that the amount claimed was reasonable and in the best interests of the incapable. He therefore approved the compensation claimed.
Thanks for reading.
"Your worth consists in what you are and not in what you have." — Thomas Edison
Considered one of the most prolific inventors in history, Thomas Edison held over a thousand U.S. patents in his name (click here for a full list of all 1,093 patents). Incredibly, when awarded the Congressional Gold Medal in 1928, Edison’s work was valued at nearly $16 billion.
So how could the man who invented the phonograph, incandescent light bulb, motion picture camera, the stock ticker and the alkaline battery amongst others, possibly have died a comparatively poor man? When he died in 1931, his estate was worth about $12 million, but most of this was buildings and equipment in his labs and factories.
In the January 1932 issue of Modern Mechanix, Remsen Crawford, biographer and personal friend, reported that Edison had revealed that his many patents never made a fortune for him, rather his income was primarily derived from his activities as manufacturer. Edison went on to explain that U.S. government patent protection expires after 17 years, but in the case of such great inventions, someone always steps forward to challenge the real inventor’s right to his patent. Edison spent a lot of money in court trying to establish his claims to his inventions. In fact, Edison indicated that he spent more defending his patents in court than he had ever derived from them on a royalty basis.
As so eloquently summed up by his good friend Henry Ford: "He was not a money-maker…his own portion was a mere nothing compared with the wealth he created for the world."
David M. Smith
Listen to Tracking Down Heirs
This week on Hull on Estates, Diane Vieira and Rick Bickhram discuss the issue of when an estate trustee is responsible to search for potential heirs to an estate.
Comments? Send us an email at firstname.lastname@example.org, call us on the comment line at 206-350-6636, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.
The superrich likely have the market cornered when it comes to epic estate battles – Howard Hughes, J. Howard Marshall (i.e. Anna Nicole Smith), and E. Howard Hunt (of silver fame) – quickly come to mind.
However, even the mildly famous or sainted can have their moment in the estate spotlight. Recently, Luciano Pavarotti’s family was in the news when a dispute arose among his offspring in respect of his considerable fortune. They have apparently reached a settlement.
I also read with interest a recent US newspaper article indicating that two of Martin Luther King’s children had filed a lawsuit against a third regarding a dispute over the civil rights leader’s estate (J. Edger Hoover would have loved it). Bernice King and Martin Luther King III filed a lawsuit in Atlanta in order to force their brother, Dexter King, to open the books of their famous father’s estate.
From what I understand, the lawsuit claims that Dexter King, who is the executor of his father’s estate, has refused to provide his brother and sister with documents concerning the estate’s administration. The lawsuit claims that Dexter King and the estate "converted substantial funds from the estate’s financial accounts…for their own use". The siblings were never told beforehand and are now seeking financial records and other documents in order to investigate the administration of the estate.
Martin Luther King’s "dream" seems to have stalled when it comes to sibling rivalry and the fortunes of his estate. However, on a more serious note, the dispute once again reminds us of the importance of transparency in the administration of an estate and open communication between executor and beneficiary.
Thanks for reading. Auf Wiedersehen