Tag: interim distribution

11 Feb

Exercising the Discretion to Make Interim Distributions

James Jacuta Estate & Trust Tags: , , , , 0 Comments

What do you do as a lawyer when you represent someone who is waiting to receive money from an estate, but the Estate Trustee will not pay? An interim distribution can commonly be made. The Estate Trustee can hold back some of the funds for potential liabilities and distribute some of the money immediately.  Potential liabilities can involve delayed tax filings related to Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) procedures being slow, or other estate liabilities. Final distribution can be delayed for a matter of 2-3 years, or even longer. As an example, on a $1,000,000 estate, the hold back might be $200,000 on $50,000 of estate liabilities that are known or can be knowledgeably estimated. This safely leaves $800,000 for immediate interim distribution, without waiting years until concluding administration of the estate. However, the practice of the Office of Public Guardian and Trustee  (OPGT) in Ontario is not to do interim distributions. They take the position that even if there is the remotest potential for liability they will not take the risk. As a government entity there is certainly no incentive to take any risk. The following rhetorical question illustrates the problem –  What civil servant in a bureaucratic government agency is going to move quickly to take on liability and risk?

A recent decision clearly directs the Office of Public Guardian and Trustee  (OPGT) of Ontario to make an immediate interim distribution as Estate Trustee.

It is unfortunate, in my view, that anyone would have to take steps to seek an Order in these circumstances. This is what happened in  Foundation for Human Development and Jack Benson v The Estate of Keith Irwin-Reekie, 2020 ONSC 299, with the decision released on January 15, 2020. The court directed an interim distribution by the OPGT, to distribute the inheritance to which the moving parties were entitled. The court found that it was appropriate to exercise discretion under rule 74.15 (1) (i)  “Orders for Assistance” of the Rules of Civil Procedure, Courts of Justice Act. The reasoning was that it was usual practice for estate trustees to make interim distributions out of estates,  “once the Estate Trustee has a good understanding of the taxes and other liabilities of the estate, holding back sufficient funds  in the estate to satisfy those expenses / liabilities”.

Thanks for reading!

James Jacuta

20 Jul

Can a Beneficiary Force an Interim Distribution from an Estate?

Noah Weisberg Estate & Trust, Executors and Trustees, Litigation, Passing of Accounts, Trustees Tags: , , , , , , , , 0 Comments

A question that I am often asked by both beneficiaries and Estate Trustees, is whether the Court can compel an Estate Trustee to make an interim distribution.

Beneficiaries and Estate Trustees are often at odds as to how quickly they wish to proceed with an interim distribution.  A beneficiary is generally eager to receive their entitlement from an Estate as soon as possible.  Estate Trustees, however, carry significant personal liability should they too hastily pay out Estate funds, and therefore tend to exercise caution before distributing.

In the decision of Parson v McGovern, a motion by a beneficiary (who had a one-half interest in the Estate) sought to compel the Estate Trustees to make an interim distribution of almost all of the remaining assets of the Estate to the beneficiaries.  The beneficiary requested that this distribution be made before the Estate Trustees passed their accounts (and obtained Court approval).

The Court considered the prior decisions in Re Blow, Brighter v. Brighter Estate, and others, and concluded that the following factors should be considered by the Court when deciding whether to compel an Estate Trustee to make an interim distribution to a beneficiary:

  • are the Estate Trustees deadlocked;
  • have the Estate Trustees acted with mala fides;
  • have the Estate Trustees failed to exercise their discretion to make an interim distribution;
  • have the Estate Trustees behaved unreasonably or breached their fiduciary duty and duty of good faith and fairness to the respondent (the beneficiary); and,
  • would a beneficiary suffer under undue prejudice.

In applying these factors to the case at hand, the Court considered, in part, that the Estate Trustees were not deadlocked, had proceeded to pass their accounts in an expeditious fashion, did not extort the beneficiary into signing a waiver/release, did not cause delay in administering the Estate, and there was no evidence the beneficiary would be unduly prejudiced if an interim distribution was not made.  Based on this, the Court did not compel the Estate Trustees to make an interim distribution, and the motion by the respondent beneficiary was dismissed.

Noah Weisberg

Please consider these other interesting related blogs/podcasts:

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

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

CONNECT WITH US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET