Tag: estate planning
In our blog on March 18th, we gave some ideas for getting formal wills executed when the lawyer couldn’t be present to witness. In today’s blog, we have a few more options for our clients to consider if getting a Will executed immediately is necessary.
As we all know, holograph Wills are valid in Ontario. To qualify as a valid holograph Will, the document must be in the handwriting of the Will-maker and signed. The Succession Law Reform Act speaks to being “wholly” in the Will-maker’s handwriting. However, case-law supports the validity of a handwritten portion of a document, even if the entire document is not in the Will-maker’s handwriting. To the extent any part of the document is not in the Will-maker’s handwriting, that part will be excluded from the otherwise valid holograph document.
We have several clients who are in isolation making it impossible to have two witnesses execute our drafted Will. For a simple but, emergency situation, we are recommending that a holograph Will be done. We have a few key provisions to be included as a bare minimum:
- Identifying the document as a Will;
- Revoking prior Will;
- Appointing an executor;
- Simple dispositive provisions;
- Executor’s power to sell; and
The key instructions are:
- The entire document must be handwritten by the Will-maker; and
- The Will-maker must sign the document at the end.
Proof of handwriting will be necessary if the holograph Will must be probated. One option that may come in handy is to have the Will-maker video the writing and signing of the document.
We also strongly recommend that the client come in to sign a formal Will as soon as possible.
Click on the link to see a sample Client Holograph Will Instruction sheet for use in these kinds of situations.
In Monday’s blog, we’ll discuss the novel idea that our colleague, Mary Stokes raised. Can a client use a simple holograph Will to incorporate the terms of a comprehensive formal Will which can’t be properly signed because of a lack of witnesses?
Hope you are all safe and healthy,
Like many of you, we are struggling to figure out ways to get our clients’ Wills executed during this period of social distancing.
Ontario has very strict rules on how a Will has to be executed in order for it to be valid. Unlike many other Provinces, Ontario does not have “substantial compliance” legislation that allows a Court to validate a Will that has not been duly executed.
These rules cannot be changed except by legislative action. The Succession Law Reform Act would have to be amended. The Law Society of Ontario is not able to give permission to override these requirements.
The key requirements are that:
- The Will-maker must sign or acknowledge his/her signature in the presence of two witness; and
- Both witnesses must sign in the presence of the Will-maker and each other.
The “presence of” requirement is generally regarded as having to be in the same room and be able to see one another signing the Will.
We have almost always resisted sending the Will out to be executed by the client without our presence for fear that it would not be executed properly. However, under the current circumstances, we are adopting a process for our clients who need to have their Wills signed.
Protocol for Remote Execution
Firstly, we explain to the client the strict rules for signing the Will and that the Will won’t be valid unless these rules are followed exactly.
We also remind them of who cannot be a witness:
- A Beneficiary (even a contingent beneficiary);
- The married spouse of a Beneficiary; or
- A person under age 18.
A person who is named as an executor, but not a beneficiary, can be a proper witness.
We’ve created this Client Will Signing Checklist document that we send to the client and ask them to complete during the Will signing and send back to us. Here is a link to the document.
Some firms are asking their clients to video the Will execution process in such a way that all three parties, the Will-maker and the two witnesses are visible. The client can send a copy of the video for the lawyer’s files. Of course, this is not required, but may put you more at ease when you see that they did it correctly.
The Affidavit of Execution can be prepared and sworn after the signing.
Once we are able to interact in person, we are recommending that our clients come in to re-sign their Wills at our office, just to be on the safe side.
Thank you for reading.
Coinbase co-founder and CEO Brian Armstrong recently blogged about the future of cryptocurrency, predicting that it will reach 1 billion users by the year 2030 (up from about 50 million at the start of this decade). With the anticipated increased uptake of cryptocurrency, we can expect that more and more people will hold these types of digital assets on their death. The question then arises: how should cryptocurrencies be dealt with in one’s estate plan?
By way of background, cryptocurrency is virtual currency that uses cryptography to verify financial transactions and control production of currency units in a decentralized, peer-to-peer exchange network. Cryptocurrency runs on Blockchain technology, which allows for blocks of information about transactions to be recorded and stored on a distributed ledger. When a transaction takes place, a block is added to the blockchain and there is a corresponding change in balance in the buyer and seller’s cryptocurrency wallets.
A cryptocurrency wallet or “crypto wallet” contains a person’s public and private keys – the former is used to receive cryptocurrency and the latter is used to spend/send cryptocurrencies to other wallet addresses. The crypto wallet is the only means of accessing one’s digital currency. There are different types of wallets that can be used to store and access digital currency, such as online accounts, mobile apps, external hard drives, or simply paper.
Because cryptocurrency is an intangible asset with little to no paper trail, special estate planning considerations should be made to ensure that the value of these digital assets is not lost on death and can be distributed to the intended beneficiaries.
First, the cryptocurrency owned by a person should be expressly referred to in their will to ensure that their executor is aware that these digital assets exist. A testator should then provide sufficient detail for their executor to be able to locate and access the testator’s crypto wallet. Specifically, the testator should describe what type of crypto wallet they have, where it is stored, and provide any other information that may be needed to access the crypto wallet. Instead of listing this sensitive information in the will itself, which becomes part of the public record through the probate process, a testator should include it in a memorandum to their will.
Thanks for reading!
Goss Estate (Re), 2020 ABQB 121 (CanLII) is the most recent case to discuss the applicability of the Rule Against Perpetuities.
As stated in the case, “Cases involving the Rules Against Perpetuities are rare, however the Rule is alive and well in Alberta…”.
The case notes, dramatically, that the common law doctrine limits “the grasp of the dead hand … on the hand of the living.”
Simply put, the Rule provides that “No interest is good unless it must vest; if at all, not later than 21 years after some life in being at the creation of the interest.”
In Goss Estate, the Rule was applied and the trust created by the testator was found to be invalid. There, the deceased left a will that provided that the residue of the estate was to “be retained in trust for future generations of children and grandchildren”, with only the interest on the capital to be paid out. There was no ultimate residual beneficiary named.
Although Alberta has a “wait and see” rule that provides that if an interest may vest during the period, the trust is not necessarily invalid, such a provision did not apply in Goss as the court found that the interest was incapable of vesting within the perpetuity period.
In conclusion, the court found that the trust was invalid. As there were no named residual beneficiary, the estate passed on an intestacy, to the testator’s two children. With respect to the trust that was intended, “While [the testator] had somewhat noble ideas about how to deal with his estate, perpetual trusts have been unenforceable since 1682”.
For other blogs on the Rule Against Perpetuities, see Stuart Clark’s blog, Rule Against Perpetuities – It’s not so scary, and my blogs, Property Rights and the Rule Against Perpetuities and Hollywood, and the Rule Against Perpetuities.
As always, thank you for reading.
While the majority of people use their wills to provide for their friends and family after they have passed away, some take their wills as an opportunity to creatively leave their mark in their passing.
In today’s blog, we will look at three cases of bizarre will provisions and their outcomes.
Comedian, Jack Benny was married to his wife, Mary Livingstone, for nearly 50 years. While Jack was known to the public for his television persona of being stingy and terrible at playing the violin, Jack was quite the romantic to Mary. When Jack died in 1974, he left a provision in his will that one red rose was to be delivered to Mary every day for the rest of her life.
In a magazine article written by Mary in memory of Jack, it seems as if Jack’s wishes were carried out. Mary stated that “every day since Jack has gone, the florist has delivered one long-stemmed red rose to my home.”
Real estate investor and hotel owner, Leona Helmsley, died in 2007. Leona was dubbed the “Queen of Mean”. Leona’s will stated that a $12 million trust was to be established for her Maltese dog named “Trouble”. Leona excluded two of her grandchildren from her will but included $10 million for two of her other grandchildren on the condition that they regularly visit their father’s gravesite.
Trouble’s inheritance was reduced to $2 million by the court, with the remaining balance going to Ms. Helmsley’s charitable foundation. While the loss of income may have been upsetting to Trouble, it may also have come as a relief as there were reports that the dog was forced to go into hiding after a reported threat to kidnap her.
Sam Weir, who was a retired lawyer, stipulated in his will that $3,500 was to be held in trust for the Law Society of Upper Canada. He directed that each year, the income from the trust was to be paid to the student who graduated from the Bar Admissions Course with the lowest marks. His reasoning behind this was that he knew many lawyers who became successful by “keeping their lack of knowledge in the dark.”
Sam strongly recommended that the recipient of the funds spend it on a “night on the town.” If the Law Society accepted the gift, Sam provided that it would receive an additional $10,000 to be spent on a series of lectures named the “Weir lectures”.
The Law Society declined the gift on the basis that it was not charitable.
Although adding an unconventional provision in your will might be tempting, doing so is risky as the provision could be declared invalid for a number of reasons such as uncertainty, impossibility of performance, public policy and more. If you do find yourself wanting to add a unique provision in your will such as the testators above, it is best to discuss it with a lawyer. Even retired lawyer, Sam Weir, could have benefited from such a discussion.
Thanks for reading!
Suzana Popovic-Montag and Celine Dookie
To read about some more unconventional wills, check out these blogs:
It is the end of 2019. I therefore of course feel the need to use this blog to urge you to resolve to either make a will if you do not already have one, or, if you already have one, to review your current estate plan to see if it requires updating.
Why the urgency you might ask? The answer lies in the most festive of NYE tipples – champagne!
Apparently, approximately 24 people die annually from being hit by champagne corks. In fact, it has been alleged that more people die as a result of being hit by a champagne cork, than from poisonous spiders. This article highlights the death of a Hong Kong billionaire by champagne while celebrating his 50th birthday. As he opened a celebratory bottle of champagne, the cork hit the businessman in the temple causing a fatal brain hemorrhage. His death was confirmed on the way to the hospital.
Champagne corks as a cause of death have received much doubt and there have been steps to debunk as a ‘myth’. For instance, according to this article, the average rate at which a champagne cork exits a bottle is about 24.8 miles per hour. In extreme circumstances, if there was up to 3 bars of pressure, a cork could reach speeds of 60 miles per hour. Regardless, these speeds are not enough to cause a cork to be deadly.
So, while death by a champagne cork may not be a valid reason to urge you to consider your estate plan, there are many other good reasons as discussed in these related Hull & Hull blogs:
- Benefits of Estate Planning for Today’s Young Adults
- Make Estate Planning One of Your New Year’s Resolutions
- Happy New Year! And Be Careful!!
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
As we head towards the holiday season, it is a good time to think about the past. The weather is drab and the days are short, too, so we have ample opportunity to curl up in cozy chairs – rum and eggnog in hand, perhaps – to read old books, watch history documentaries, or otherwise reminisce of that which came before us. In line with this, in today’s blog we examine a case from 1919, Muirhead Estate, Re, which includes a decision that is both intriguing and continuously relevant for estate planning.
The deceased had left a widowhood clause in his will, by which he sought to discourage his widow from marrying another. Remarry, however, she did, in the event of which the executors of the Muirhead Estate applied to the court for directions as to the construction of the following clause:
“If my wife shall remarry the share hereby bequeathed to her shall revert to my estate and be divided among my said children.”
The court had to determine if the clause violated public policy, for even in 1919, conditional gifts “in general restraint of marriage” had long been against public policy. It found that there was a distinction between a restraint of marriage and a restraint of remarriage. The former was clearly grounds for voiding a clause, but the latter was legally valid. In particular, restraining the “second marriage of a woman” was an established exception to the public policy rule. As for the second marriages of men, the court found that these may have still fallen under the umbrella of public policy, but it did not explain or elaborate why.
One hundred years hence, we see from cases such as Goodwin and Brown Estate that the decision in Muirhead Estate, Re, is still good law – though the distinction of second marriages of men and women is in all likelihood obsolete. According to the public policy rule, you cannot, through conditions in your will, prevent a beneficiary from marrying; nor can you promote marital breakdown through such conditions. If, however, you think that your widow looks best in perpetual black finery, or you have a distaste for suitors characteristic of Odysseus, the law likely allows for you to include a widowhood clause in your last will.
Happy planning – and thank you for reading!
Suzana Popovic-Montag and Devin McMurtry
Earlier this year, Ian M. Hull, Suzana Popovic-Montag, and I were pleased to co-author the Canada Chapter of the 2019 Chambers & Partners Global Private Wealth Guide for the third consecutive year.
The guide provides an overview of the law as it relates to a number of issues relevant to financial planning and estate planning in jurisdictions throughout the world. Specifically, the following topics are covered (among others):
- tax regimes;
- succession laws;
- laws relating to the transfer of digital assets and other assets;
- family business planning;
- wealth disputes;
- elder law; and
- obligations of fiduciaries.
With chapters summarizing the state of the law and related trends in 34 countries, including the United Kingdom, United States, Switzerland, France, and Israel, the guide can be a great resource to be used as a starting point when assisting clients who have assets (or are beneficiaries of assets) in other jurisdictions.
A complete electronic copy of the 2019 Chambers & Partners Global Private Wealth Guide is available here: https://practiceguides.chambers.com/practice-guides/private-wealth-2019. The online version includes a “compare locations” feature, which allows readers to quickly review differences between two or more jurisdictions.
Thank you for reading.
A recent news article refers to the struggle of father of accused killer Bryer Schmegelsky to obtain video footage from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The father’s lawyer has referred to the video as the accused’s “last will and testament.” It was apparently recorded very shortly before death and expresses funeral and burial preferences.
Oral wills (also known as nuncupative wills) are recognized in select jurisdictions, including some American states:
- New York law provides that an oral will, heard by at least two witnesses and made by a member of the active military or a mariner while at sea can be valid and will expire one year after discharge from the armed forces or three years after a sailor, if the testator survives the situation of peril;
- In North Carolina, an oral will made while the testator’s death is imminent and in circumstances where the testator does not survive in the presence of two or more witnesses may be valid;
- In Texas, oral wills made in the presence of three or more witnesses on the testator’s deathbed before September 2007 are valid in respect of personal property of limited value.
As most state legislation is silent on the issue of videotaped wills, if the testator’s oral wishes are videotaped, they must generally meet the criteria for a valid oral will to be effective.
However, in Canada, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and witnessed by two people. Alternatively, a will that is entirely in the testator’s handwriting and unwitnessed may be valid. Because Ontario is a strict compliance jurisdiction, any inconsistency with the formal requirements, as set out in the Succession Law Reform Act, renders a will invalid.
While a videotaped statement intended to be viewed posthumously may not be a valid will in Ontario and other Canadian provinces, it can nevertheless be used to express the deceased’s final wishes, for example with respect to the disposition of his or her remains (which are typically precatory rather than enforceable, even if appearing within a written document), and may assist a family in finding closure following an unexpected loss.
Thank you for reading.
In a recent recording, “Money in the Grave”, Drake asks that he be buried with his money. He sings:
In the next life, I’m tryna stay paid
When I die, put my money in the grave.
Several issues come to mind.
First, Drake’s wish to be buried with his money is not binding on his estate trustee unless it is in a properly executed testamentary instrument.
Second, even if the money is buried with Drake, his estate trustee may have to pay Estate Administration Tax on the buried money if the will is to be probated. Drake may want to consider multiple wills. (Well-considered primary and secondary wills might also avoid the payment of Estate Administration Tax on the value of all of his chains, and other bling.)
Third, the act of destroying money is illegal in many jurisdictions. In Canada, under the Currency Act, it is illegal to “melt down, break up or use otherwise than as currency any coin that is legal tender in Canada”. The Criminal Code creates an offence for defacing a current coin. There is no similar prohibition on defacing or destroying paper money. However, in the US, burning money or any other act that renders a note “unfit to be reissued” is illegal. Arguably, the act of burying money is not the same as destroying money.
(Read Stuart Clark’s blog, here, about a woman who cut up the equivalent of $1.4m CDN to disinherit her heirs.)
Fourth, Drake’s estate trustee might be accused of waste. He or she may want to seek the opinion, advice or direction of the court before they “Bury my [expletive] Chase Bank.”
More on point, in the US decision of Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co., 524 S.w.2d 210 (1975), the testator directed that her house be burned down, the lot sold, and the proceeds added to the residue of her estate. A neighbour wasn’t too crazy about the idea, and applied for an injunction. The injunction was, at first, denied. On appeal, the court held that the direction in the will was against public policy.
The court in Eyerman cited the decision of In re Scott’s Will, 88 Minn. 386 (1903). There, the testator directed his estate trustee to destroy money belonging to the estate. The court there found that the clause was void. The court also quoted from Restatement, Second, Trusts, 124, at 267.
“Although a person may deal capriciously with his own property, his self interest ordinarily will restrain him from doing so. Where an attempt is made to confer such a power upon a person who is given no other interest in the property, there is no such restraint and it is against public policy to allow him to exercise the power if the purpose is merely capricious.”
In Restatement, an example is given of a bequest from A’s estate to B in trust to throw the money into the sea. (Query: more lyrical or less lyrical than Drake’s direction?) “B holds the money upon a resulting trust for the estate of A and is liable to the estate of A if he throws the money into the sea.”
In another, earlier Drake ditty, “Crew Love”, Drake boasted about spending $50K on a vacation, and needing restaurant reservations for twenty. “I never really been one for the preservation of money. Much rather spend it all while I’m breathing.” It seems that he now has so much money that he may not be able to spend it all while living, and he is turning his thoughts to succession planning. He may want to get some professional estate planning advice.
Thank you for reading.