Tag: Estate Litigation
During Hull on Estates Episode #55, Sean Graham and Paul Trudelle discuss joint and several liability of trustees with respect to the administration of an estate. They focus on avoiding liability when there are two or more estate trustees.
Paul and Sean examine this estate topic with respect to the case of Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co. and Cooper (No. 2) Re.
Yesterday I reviewed the decision of Holmes Estate (Re)  B.C.J. No. 45. You will recall that a gift in the testator’s Will to “all my nieces and nephews” was interpreted in the circumstances to mean a bequest to the children of the testator’s siblings including the 18 nieces and nephews of the testator’s late wife.
One such niece, Patricia Meadows, had been married to Alfie Meadows. Alfie was seeking entitlement to a share in the residue of the estate belonging to Patricia, who had died before the testator. He was doing so on the basis of the language contained in the Will that if any of the testator’s nieces or nephews predeceased him, that person’s share was to be paid to their surviving spouse.
The problem for Alfie was that he had been convicted of Patricia’s murder! The Court quite justly denied Alfie entitlement to Patricia’s share in the estate by applying the general rule of public policy that a person is precluded from benefiting from a crime.
The irony in this case is that while Alfie’s crime didn’t pay for him, it did benefit the surviving nieces and nephews, as the gift was a class gift (when a member of the class is disqualified their share is divided amongst the remaining members).
While this case made for an interesting read, I can only hope that the decision will help deter similar claims from arising again.
Have a good day,
It was recently held that a gift in a Will given to “all my nieces and nephews”, included not only the children of the testator’s siblings, but also the 18 nieces and nephews of the testator’s late wife: Holmes Estate (Re)  B.C.J. No. 45.
The Court reviewed the prior judicial interpretation of the terms “niece” and “nephew” as used in Wills. It was satisfied that the words nieces and nephews could, in their ordinary meaning, apply to the children of the testator’s late wife’s siblings, and noted that while years ago the meaning of these words were confined to children of a testator’s siblings, the New Concise Oxford English Dictionary presently defines these terms as including the children of a brother-in-law or sister-in-law.
The Court then turned to the question of what the testator meant by “nieces” and “nephews”. After considering the surrounding circumstances, it concluded that the testator intended to benefit his late wife’s nieces and nephews. Circumstances in support of this finding were that these family members were named beneficiaries in his earlier Wills and that he had ongoing relationships with several of them. One additional and unique fact was that the alleged ambiguity was brought to the testator’s attention in his lifetime, and he indicated he was satisfied with the wording of his Will.
This decision is demonstrative of the reality that as definitions of families change so may their entitlement in the estate planning context (intentionally or fortuitously), which lawyers may want to keep in mind when crafting testamentary instruments.
Have a good day.
It’s always good to end the week on a high note and once again the baby boom generation is in the news. A recent report by Decima Research says almost $1 trillion in cash and other assets will be transferred to the children of baby boomers in the years to come. The baby boomers are without a doubt the richest generation that Canada has produced to date. Even in death, the baby boomers will continue to shape our society.
In the past, the typical inheritance was likely considerably less than $100,000. However, when asked, more than 50% of the children of baby boomers expect to receive $283,000 on average. This figure represents a significant increase from the past and is indicative of the wealth that baby boomers have accumulated over the years. Half the $283,000 will be received in cash and the rest in real estate and valuables.
However, to me it is also clear that baby boomers will live longer than past generations and likely spend at a greater rate than their parents ever did as they fight the ravages of old age. Ultimately, there may not be as much to pass along as their children would like to think. The baby boomers also have an altruistic streak and may leave some of their wealth to their favourite charity.
Regardless of who gets the money, the need for proper estate planning is clear. Now is the time for boomers to get their personal affairs in order if they haven’t already. Baby boomers should let their children know now what their wishes are in order to avoid family fights in the future when their estates are being distributed. If parents are afraid that their children will react angrily if treated differently, they should nevertheless let them know and the reason why. The emotional and financial costs to the next generation is far greater than the immediate upset if a parent tells a child that he or she is being treated differently under the terms of their Will or that a charity is slated to receive the bulk of their estate. Perhaps a family conference with an outside facilitator is the way to go. Unfortunately, no matter what the baby boomers do, estate litigation is likely to increase as their children fight over their inheritance or try and prove what the “true wishes” of their parents were.
Finally, the generation which benefits from this trillion dollar transfer will have to carefully decide what to do with the windfall. Many will pay off their mortgages or other debts affording them the opportunity to accumulate their own personal fortune and pass it on to the next generation. Estate planning will always be with us… the sooner it’s done the better.
Thanks for reading and enjoy the weekend.
Justin de Vries
I was recently in the Brampton courthouse. I imagine that Brampton is one of the busiest courthouses in the Province. It serves the Regional Municipality of Peel, which includes Mississauga and Brampton. The courthouse is busy with both criminal and civil matters. While I was there, I heard requests over the loudspeaker for Polish, Punjabi, Vietnamese, Chinese, and Spanish interpreters.
For my part, I was scheduled to speak to a guardianship application, which was to be adjourned on terms. The problem I faced was securing a full day hearing date for the return of the application. My matter involves a widow, whose health is declining. She has been declared incapable of managing her property and making personal care decisions. The application was brought by the widow’s nieces (my clients) to be appointed co-guardians of property and personal care for their aunt. The application is hotly opposed by the attorney for property and personal care, who my clients believe was appointed under suspicious circumstances.
While the adjournment was granted, it was also crucial that I obtain a timely hearing date for the application. However, the presiding judge apologized and advised that the first available date was not until late September 2007. More than six months would pass before the application would be heard. Her Honour explained that the region was understaffed when it came to judicial resources and simply could not accommodate all matters despite their apparent urgency. Her Honour also indicated that criminal matters usually took precedence over civil matters, as the right of an accused to a fair hearing would be prejudiced by undue delay.
The bottom line is that parties intent on litigating, whether in the estate context or otherwise, should understand that institutional delay will often push their “day in court” well into the future. Justice delayed is justice denied. However, that is the reality that litigants face in today’s overburdened court system.
It is for this reason that many alternatives to litigation are frequently promoted. Mediation is a good example, as is binding arbitration in commercial litigation matters. A party should therefore carefully consider what options they have before necessarily assuming that a court hearing is their best course of action.
Justin de Vries
Much has already been written about the trial of Conrad Black currently unfolding in Chicago. There are, of course, constant press dispatches and on-going, daily TV coverage. I will leave Conrad Black’s innocence or guilt to the jury sitting in Chicago. However, on a more subtle level, there are lessons to be learned for any party in protracted litigation.
When Conrad Black was first charged with fraud and racketeering, he was widely condemned. His critics took a certain amount of glee in seeing “Conrad brought low”. He was after all getting his proper comeuppance after years of malfeasance. However, Conrad Black did not flinch or bow to the pressure. He maintained his innocence rather convincingly throughout and clearly believed in the strength of his case.
To my mind, what has been impressive is Conrad Black’s perseverance in the face of adversity. Persevering is key to successfully litigating. It has been said that litigation is not a tea party; in fact, it’s more akin to war. A party has to have, or quickly develop, a thick skin. The opposing party and their counsel will hurl all sorts of allegations against you, belittle your case, and try to marshal evidence that at first blush may seem crushing and unanswerable. However, a party has to believe in the righteousness of their case and not lose faith.
Obviously, a party should have only commenced litigation or mounted a defence after carefully considering the facts and the law. If it was concluded that litigation was unavoidable, then a party should not waiver but persevere. A party should always consider reasonable settlement options, but nevertheless carry on undaunted.
Litigation can be difficult, expensive, and in the estate context emotional. Many litigants begin to waiver midstream wondering whether they made the right decision, if the proper evidence has been gathered, and if their case is as strong as it first appeared. However, with the help of good counsel, a party will weather the storm.
When in doubt, stop for a moment and think of Conrad Black who persevered despite the tremendous pressure and the clamour of his critics. Who knows, he may ultimately win.
Justin de Vries
During Hull on Estates Podcast #54, David Smith, Partner at Hull & Hull LLP, discusses his upcoming Probator article (check the Hull & Hull website soon) which concerns making a Will in contemplation of marriage.
David discusses the circumstances that surround this clause, Section 16 of the Succession Law Reform Act and how this issue can cause litigation.
I recently attended a client meeting where the issue of mediation was hotly debated. My client expressed reluctance in participating in a process with a party that my client regarded as intransigent and obstinate. My client also thought that proposing mediation would suggest to the other side that our case was weak and we were looking for a way out. After persuading my client that mediation was at least worth considering, a more substantive debate arose as to when to mediate. This debate deserves some comment.
In many ways, mediation is all "the rage" and early mediation is especially championed in the estate setting. In general, society is reluctant to see family members fight over what is perceived as a windfall. The courts reflect and promote this view. My colleagues and I have all blogged on the merits of mediation and I won’t repeat them here. But parties can mediate too early. Often parties attend mediation without knowing the full extent of the estate assets or merely having a vague idea. Liquid assets might be readily ascertainable, but have all the liquid assets been uncovered i.e. have proper inquiries been made? Assets such as art, vintage cars, or family antiques are harder to evaluate and may require a professional appraisal, all of which takes time.
Moreover, the parties have often not exchanged relevant documents before attending mediation, something which they would be required to do if mediation took place at a later stage. Exchanging relevant documents will help a party better understand the risks they face in pursuing litigation, the weakness of their case, and the strength of their opponent’s case (and vice versa). Forewarned is forearmed.
Back to my client meeting where it was decided that it was too early to mediate. An allegation had been made that an estate trustee had stolen money from the estate. However, no one was quite sure how much was taken and whether the estate trustee acted alone or in concert with an investment advisor. Some sort of accounting was required, supported by back-up documentation before mediation could take place and ultimately be effective. A court order might even have to be obtained to get at the necessary information. Mediation would happen, but at the right time with the right information. It is imperative that a party know their case so that they know when to mediate and how best to settle.
Justin de Vries
This blog completes my week-long rogue’s gallery of criminal convictions in estate matters. So far I’ve talked about the Criminal Code in general plus specific cases involving breach of trust and theft.
On to fraud.
In R. v. Moore (1998 Carswell Nfld 276), an accused along with a deceased’s four siblings signed and filed with the court false documents stating that the whereabouts of the deceased’s four children were unknown, that the deceased left no will, and that the accused knew of no one else with an interest in the estate. This is chronicled at length in a set of reasons dealing with the deceased’s remarkable and inspiring life. The accused, though equally remarkable, was hardly inspiring. The criminal charges marked the culmination of her complex scheme of lies and deceit.
The accused claimed she doubted whether her brother was born to the deceased, and said her doubts in this regard justified her behaviour. The Court found that the accused was “resourceful, and articulate”, but used her talents by “persist[ing] in [a] despicable charade” to defraud her brother, nieces and nephews.
For all her trouble, the accused received $10,000, plus a conviction for fraud. It is often bizarre the extent someone will go for what seems, objectively, to be a small amount of money.
An interesting aspect of the case is that the deceased in question, mother of the accused/convicted, was by all indications a font of kindness and compassion, taking several children under her wing during her lifetime. The reasons dwell at length on what a fine person the deceased was, implying quite clearly that the accused failed to measure up to her mother’s legacy.
We will not be posting a blog on Good Friday, April 6, 2007.
Thanks for reading.
Read the transcribed version of "Tips for Controlling and Managing Estate Litigation"
During Hull on Estates Episode #53, Craig Vander Zee and Bianca La Neve conclude their discussion on tips for controlling and managing estate litigation. They focus on the hearing of issues, applications vs. actions, oral discovery and mediation.
Look in the Hull on Estates archives to find more podcasts on managing estate litigation.