Tag: Powers of Attorney
Considerations for Determining the Validity of Powers of Attorney and Appointing Guardians for Property and Personal Care
In yesterday’s blog, I discussed the recent decision in Rudin-Brown et al v. Brown, 2021 ONSC 3366, focusing on the court’s decision in respect of the admissibility and weight given to the audio recordings of Carolyn Brown’s telephone conversations.
In today’s blog, I discuss the factors considered by the court in (i) determining that the 2016 powers of attorney were invalid, and (ii) declaring Carolyn’s 2009 power of attorney for property to be operative, and (iii) appointing Jeanne and Missy as Carolyn’s co-guardians of the person.
The court applied the factors outlined in Royal Trust Corporation of Canada v. Saunders,  OJ No 2291, to determine whether or not Carolyn’s 2016 powers of attorney were executed under suspicious circumstances. Particularly, the court considered the following:
- The extent of physical and mental impairment of the grantor around the time the powers of attorney were signed;
- Whether the powers of attorney in question constitutes a significant change from the former powers of attorney;
- The factual circumstances surrounding the execution of the powers of attorney; and
- Whether any grantee was instrumental in the preparation of the powers of attorney.
Note, the consideration of “whether the will in question generally seems to make testamentary sense” does not apply to powers of attorney.
The court noted that, among other things, (i) there was evidence that Carolyn was having memory issues at the time the powers of attorney were signed, (ii) after visiting two law firms without success, Gordon downloaded forms for powers of attorney and some will templates from the internet, and (iii) one of the witnesses to the powers of attorney testified that Carolyn seemed “vaguely puzzled” the day she witnessed Carolyn’s signature and also stated that Carolyn said that Gordon had told her to sign the powers of attorney.
The court concluded that the powers of attorney were executed under suspicious circumstances in respect of capacity and undue influence. The court also concluded that Gordon failed to prove that Carolyn had capacity to execute the powers of attorney and declared the powers of attorney to be invalid. In addition, the court found that Gordon “failed to show that Carolyn signed the powers of attorney as a result of her own “full, free and informed thought” and has failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence arising from his and Carolyn’s relationship” and therefore concluded that “even if Carolyn had the capacity to sign one or both powers of attorney, they are not valid due to undue influence.”
In respect of appointing guardians of property and personal care for Carolyn, the court did not solely rely on Carolyn’s 2009 powers of attorney, but rather entered into a detailed analysis to determine who would be appointed as Carolyn’s guardians. As noted by Justice H. J. Williams,
“In appointing a guardian for property, the court shall consider whether the proposed guardian is the attorney under a continuing power of attorney, the incapable person’s current wishes and the closeness of the applicant’s relationship to the incapable person. Where there is an ongoing valid power of attorney, cases in Ontario and elsewhere have held that the court must first determine whether there is strong evidence of misconduct or neglect on the part of the attorney before the court should ignore the wishes of the donor.”
The court did “not hesitate to find that, in accordance with Carolyn’s 2009 power of attorney for property, Jeanne should be Carolyn’s guardian for property and that Carter should be the alternative attorney.” The court noted that in Carolyn’s 2009 power of attorney for personal care, Carolyn had named Gordon and Missy as her attorneys for personal care. While the court was satisfied that Missy would be able to fulfill the duties of guardian of the person, the court was not satisfied that Gordon would be able to do so for several reasons, some of which are outlined below:
- “A guardian must make decisions that are in the incapable person’s best interests”, which Gordon had failed to do consistently for Carolyn.
- “A guardian must seek to foster regular personal contact between the incapable person and supportive family members and friends” and Gordon failed to foster Carolyn’s relationships with Missy or Jeanne.
- “Gordon did not consult anyone other than Carolyn in preparing his guardianship plan.”
- Gordon intended to “discontinue a companion service for Carolyn that had been recommended for her and that she had been receiving and apparently enjoying.” Although Gordon said that “Carolyn does not remember the visits and is unhappy with how much they cost”, the court found that “it is more likely that Gordon was unhappy about the cost.”
- The court was also concerned by the fact that Gordon had failed to follow court orders. He failed to comply with Justice Kershman’s “order to stop recording Carolyn’s conversations.” It is important to note that the court found that “it was evident from Gordon’s evidence that he felt justified in ignoring a court order if he did not agree with it.”
In summary, the court concluded that “it is in Carolyn’s best interests for Missy and Jeanne to be jointly appointed as Carolyn’s full guardians of the person.”
Thank you for reading.
In the recent decision of Rudin-Brown et al v. Brown, 2021 ONSC 3366, Justice H. J. Williams discusses the admissibility of audio recordings.
This case involves Carolyn Brown, who is 91 years old, Gordon Brown (Carolyn’s son who lives with her), Christina (“Missy”) Rudin-Brown (Carolyn’s daughter) and Jeanne Brown (Carolyn’s sister-in-law). Around 2008, Missy noticed Carolyn was having some memory problems which became more obvious around 2012. Gordon maintains that other than occasional memory lapses, Carolyn was fine until June 2017 when her memory declined suddenly and noticeably.
In September 2016, Carolyn signed powers of attorney appointing Gordon as her attorney for property and personal care. The 2016 powers of attorney replaced her 2009 powers of attorney which appointed Jeanne as her attorney for property, and Missy and Gordon as her attorneys for personal care. Carolyn also signed a new will in September 2016 appointing Gordon as the executor and the beneficiary of the residue of her estate, replacing her 2009 Will which appointed Jeanne as the executor and divided the residue of her estate equally among Gordon, Missy and Zachary Brown (the son of Carolyn’s late daughter, Sandra).
There were two competing applications before the court for the guardianship of Carolyn – one was brought by Missy and Jeanne and the other by Gordon. These applications were consolidated by Justice Kershman and a trial was ordered.
Although there were a few issues dealt with in this trial, for the purposes of this blog, I will focus on the court’s decision on the issue of whether the recordings of Carolyn’s conversations made by Gordon were admissible and if so, how they may be used as evidence.
Gordon sought to introduce into evidence 15 recordings of Carolyn’s telephone conversations he made in 2017. Also, Missy and Jeanne tendered one of Gordon’s recordings and an excerpt from another. In deciding whether these recordings were admissible, the court considered many factors including the origin of the recordings, whether Carolyn knew and fully approved of these recordings, as well as the probative value and prejudicial effect of admitting these recordings into evidence.
Among other things, Justice H. J. Williams clearly noted that “the manner in which evidence is obtained, no matter how improper or illegal, is not an impediment to its admission at common law”. It was important for the court to consider and weigh the prejudicial effect of the evidence against the probative value. Specially, the court noted that:
“The court nonetheless maintains a general exclusionary discretion to exclude otherwise admissible evidence if the prejudicial effect outweighs the probative value. Evidence may be excluded under this cost-benefit analysis if its probative value is overborne by its prejudicial effect, if it involves an inordinate amount of time to present the evidence that is not commensurate with its value, or if it is misleading in that its effect on the trier of fact is out of proportion to its reliability as probative material.”
The court found Missy’s side of the recorded conversations to be more probative than prejudicial and the conversations between Gordon and Carolyn to be highly probative and therefore admitted. The court had concerns regarding Carolyn’s side of the recorded conversations, particularly because Carolyn was not able to testify. The court discussed the fact that Gordon only produced the recordings he thought were relevant as well as considered whether Carolyn’s side of the conversations truly represented Carolyn’s views and state of mind.
Importantly, the court did not accept Gordon’s evidence that Carolyn knew he was recording her and that she had authorized him to do so. The court noted that during a conversation, Carolyn did not want to speak about something with “you know who around”, referring to Gordon. If she had known that all her conversations were being recorded, Gordon being around would have been irrelevant. As a result, the court found that “Carolyn did not agree to have her conversations recorded, or, if she did, she did not appreciate what she was agreeing to.”
Interestingly, the court noted that although “surreptitious audio and video recordings should be strongly discouraged by the courts” because they foster distrust and have a toxic effect on future relationships, if the recordings and the evidence that flowed from them were excluded in this case, the court would be “left to decide the case based on a record [the court knows] to be incomplete.”
On the issue of the audio recordings, Justice H. J. Williams “with some reluctance, concluded that the recordings are admissible” and the court “will place little weight on Carolyn’s side of the conversations.”
For a more in-depth discussion on this case and admissibility of audio recordings, please listen to last week’s podcast on Hull on Estates.
Thank you for reading.
Recent discussion of proposed amendments to the Succession Law Reform Act under Bill 245 has raised questions of whether corresponding changes will be made to the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992. In particular, some estate lawyers are wondering whether a new validation section may be added to the Substitute Decisions Act to address the issue of court validation of powers of attorney (like the new section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act has been proposed to allow courts to validate improperly-executed wills) and/or whether remote execution options may soon be made permanent for powers of attorney as well as wills.
The Substitute Decisions Act already contains curative provisions that allow the court to validate incapacity planning documents in circumstances where the documents are not executed in strict compliance with formal requirements.
Subsection 10(4) of the Substitute Decisions Act reads as follows with respect to the validation of Continuing Powers of Attorney for Property:
(4) A continuing power of attorney that does not comply with subsections (1) and (2) is not effective, but the court may, on any person’s application, declare the continuing power of attorney to be effective if the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the grantor or his or her dependants to do so.
Subsection 48(4) of the Substitute Decisions Act reads as follows with respect to the validation of Powers of Attorney for Personal Care:
(4) A power of attorney for personal care that does not comply with subsections (1) and (2) is not effective, but the court may, on any person’s application, declare the power of attorney for personal care to be effective if the court is satisfied that it is in the grantor’s interests to do so.
Remote Execution of Documents in Counterpart
While the focus of discussions among estate lawyers regarding Bill 245 may be the proposed updates to the Succession Law Reform Act and, in terms of formal will execution, the amendment of section 4 as it relates to the requirements for the witnessing of wills, Bill 245 also includes proposed changes to the Substitute Decisions Act under Schedule 8.
A new section 3.1 of the Substitute Decisions Act is being proposed to add specific references to the use of audio-visual communication technology and counterpart signing options in the execution and witnessing of Continuing Powers of Attorney for Property and Powers of Attorney for Personal Care. Accordingly, if Bill 245 is passed, the remote and counterpart execution options made available during the pandemic will be made permanent for wills and powers of attorney alike.
Thank you for reading.
Earlier this week, Ian Hull and I spoke at Osgoode Professional Development’s program on Powers of Attorney and Guardianship: Non-Contentious and Contentious Matters.
During the program, in addition to discussing new execution options for wills and powers of attorney, the panel shared its thoughts on a number of considerations relevant to the preparation of powers of attorney during the pandemic, including some of the following:
- It may now be impractical to permit for decisions regarding personal care or property to be made only jointly by two or more attorneys acting together where the attorneys selected are not members of the same household.
- In light of ongoing travel restrictions, it may be increasingly important that the selected attorney(s) for property and/or personal care are local.
- It may be more difficult to access multiple medical professionals (or a specified medical professional) to confirm incapacity during a healthcare crisis. The provision regarding the circumstances in which a power of attorney is to become effective should accommodate potentially limited access to a specified physician or more medical professionals than necessary.
- It may be more important than ever to ensure that the original power of attorney documents (and/or copies) are physically accessible to the named attorney(s).
- The current circumstances present a unique opportunity to assist clients in updating outdated plans and ensuring that powers of attorney are put into place for those who do not have them already.
Even outside of the context of a pandemic, considering practical issues like those set out above when creating or updating an incapacity plan is a worthwhile exercise and may expose potential problems with the plan before it is finalized.
Thank you for reading.
Other blog entries that may be of interest:
COVID-19 has prompted innovation and legislative updates in terms of the way that lawyers can assist our clients with estate and incapacity planning. A new tool created by a professor at my alma matter, Queen’s University, has recently emerged to supplement formal planning by making it easier for clients to create end-of-life treatment plans and to discuss their end-of-life wishes with their families and health care teams.
The Plan Well Guide is a free online tool that allows users to formulate a “Dear Doctor letter”, which can be provided to a physician for discussion and can be reviewed with family members (or otherwise an attorney or guardian of personal care) to ensure an understanding of the person’s wishes during a health crisis. The website also includes other information and resources relevant to end-of-life decision making.
I went through the process of creating an end-of-life plan using this resource and found it to be user-friendly and straightforward. Some highlights of the Plan Well Guide include the following:
- There are prompts that ask whether a user has a Power of Attorney for Personal Care and Will in place, which may act as a prompt to obtain a lawyer’s assistance if necessary.
- The website illustrates the user’s wishes, with examples to confirm the accuracy of the information that the user inputs. Where the illustration is not consistent with the user’s actual wishes, the user can go back to modify priorities to better reflect their wishes.
- Quizzes to ensure proper understanding of terms such as ICU treatment, comfort care, and the nature of resuscitation.
- There are prompts for both outstanding questions or issues for discussion with a healthcare provider and explanations of wishes to provide those reading the document with a better understanding of the user’s rationale behind their wishes.
Especially in the midst of the current pandemic, tools like this that make end-of-life planning more accessible, while having the potential to expose deficiencies in incapacity or estate planning and encouraging an open discussion of wishes in terms of medical treatment, can be helpful resources.
Thank you for reading.
Other blog posts that may be of interest:
Although the temporary emergency Order has only been in place for a few days, there is no question that lawyers have already begun to virtually witness the execution of wills and powers of attorney. A complimentary CPD program on the issue was put on by the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) last week, chaired by Ian Hull. A link to it is here. LawPRO has also provided a helpful commentary on the subject matter from the perspective of risk-avoidance here, and below I draw upon the points made that may help lawyers lessen their risk of a malpractice claim.
As much as lawyers may be focused on adhering to the requirements under the emergency Order, LawPRO reminds us that the most common cause of malpractice claims in the estates area is inadequate investigation – a failure to inquire about assets, prior wills and details about past and present marital and familial relationships. The second most common error is a communication failure – not ensuring consistency between the draft will and the instruction notes, and not ensuring that the solicitor and client each understand the other. So it is important to keep risk management tips here top of mind, particularly given that it may be more difficult to effectively communicate or ensure that clients understand documentation when conducting virtual client meetings.
As related specifically to virtual witnessing of wills and powers of attorney, LawPRO has various suggested steps to lessen the risk of a claim, which I comment on below.
- Comfort – Some clients may not be as ease with video technology and/or discussing personal matters through this medium. Take the time to establish that all participants are comfortable.
- Identification – As a result of Covid-19, the LSO is not requiring face-to-face meetings to identify or verify a client’s identity. Here you can find the LSO’s guidance on the issue, and LawPRO’s video conference checklist (accessible through the LawPRO link above) will help lawyers consider the steps needed before, during and after a video conference meeting.
- Capacity and undue influence – These known risks may be more difficult to assess through virtual communication, making it all the more important that certain precautions be taken, such as: (i) asking open questions, and follow up questions, (ii) asking questions to establish that the client is acting independently (e.g. explore relationships and reasoning in detail when marked changes are being made), (iii) when acting for one client, make sure the client is alone in the room (consider asking for a video pan of the room if you can’t clearly see it), and (iv) take notes reflecting consideration of capacity and undue influence, especially if there are any concerns. Here you can find a checklist WEL Partners has created for indicators of undue influence during video meetings, and the LSO has released a special comment on the issue here.
- No counterparts – You will need multiple virtual meetings so each witness can sign the original will or power of attorney. Video conference wills will also likely require a different affidavit of execution, and here you can find our recent blog that provides sample affidavits of execution.
- Document your work – Particular scrutiny may be given to documents executed during this health crisis. Taking detailed notes or recording the meeting (with client consent) will document what occurred, and reporting to the client thereafter will serve to confirm your instructions.
- After the emergency – Although not required, once it is safe to do so consider recommending that your clients re-execute their testamentary documents in the physical presence of witnesses.
To help mitigate the risk of a claim, Hull eState Planner has created checklists for executing wills and powers of attorney by video. The will execution by video checklist can be found here and the powers of attorney execution by video checklist can be found here.
The Covid-19 situation is creating rapid change, and at Hull & Hull LLP we are monitoring things on a daily basis. I encourage you to continue to access our website for further updates. Our resource page can be found here.
Thanks for reading and have a great day,
Since the Supreme Court of Canada’s landmark decision in Carter v Canada (Attorney General) and the subsequent decriminalization of medical assistance in dying (“MAID”) in 2016, there has been considerable debate regarding the accessibility of MAID.
Currently, MAID is available only to individuals able to satisfy the following test (set out in the Criminal Code):
- they are eligible — or, but for any applicable minimum period of residence or waiting period, would be eligible — for health services funded by a government in Canada;
- they are at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their health;
- they have a grievous and irremediable medical condition;
- they have made a voluntary request for medical assistance in dying that, in particular, was not made as a result of external pressure; and
- they give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying after having been informed of the means that are available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.
The criteria do not feature any mechanism for providing advance consent to MAID. Similarly, an attorney or guardian of personal care cannot consent on behalf of the patient at the time of the procedure, once he or she loses the capacity to consent him or herself.
As it currently stands, an individual who qualifies for MAID must consent at the time of the procedure, before he or she may suffer from diminished mental capacity that compromises the patient’s ability to provide informed consent. In some cases, this has resulted in individuals accessing MAID before they otherwise may have chosen to do so to ensure that they would not be exposed to prolonged suffering during a subsequent period of incapacity, during which MAID would not longer be accessible.
Some individuals and groups, including Dying with Dignity Canada, argue that the laws regarding MAID should be amended to provide for the option of providing advanced requests for MAID.
According to a recent Toronto Star article (“No rush to change assisted-death law”, published on February 17, 2019), Justice Minister David Lametti has stated that MAID laws will not be updated in advance of a five-year parliamentary review in 2021 of how the current MAID regime is operating. At that time, it will no doubt be difficult in considering any changes to balance the rights of those with grievous and irremediable medical conditions to die with dignity on one hand, and the protection of individuals who are vulnerable and whose capable wishes can no longer be confirmed on the other.
Thank you for reading.
Other blog entries that may be of interest:
For the many who take on the fiduciary role of an attorney for property, there is often little or no education received on one’s duties and obligations. The sole guidance often provided is from the language of the power of attorney document itself. It is rare, I would expect, that an attorney seeks out independent legal advice on the issue, which may in part be why we see so many cases in our practice where attorney spending is challenged. This blog serves as a refresher on the issue.
The legislation (Section 37(1) of the Substitute Decisions Act (“SDA”)) provides that a guardian or attorney for property must make certain expenditures out of the assets of the incapable person, listed in priority as being:
- Expenditures reasonably necessary for the person’s support, education and care.
- Expenditures reasonably necessary for the support, education and care of the person’s dependants (“dependant” is defined as a person to whom the incapable person has an obligation to provide support).
- Expenditures that are necessary to satisfy the person’s other legal obligations.
The expenditures may only be made if the assets of the incapable person are sufficient to satisfy them. The guiding principles are that the value of the property, the accustomed standard of living of the incapable person and his or her dependants and the nature of other legal obligations are to be taken into account.
An attorney may make gifts or loans to the person’s friends and relatives, and may make gifts to charities (Section 37(3) of the SDA). The policy guidelines include:
- Gifts or loans may be made only if there is reason to believe, based on the intentions expressed prior to becoming incapable, that he/she would have made these gifts if capable.
- Charitable gifts may be made only if, (i) the incapable person authorized the making of charitable gifts in the power of attorney document, or (ii) there is evidence that the person made similar expenditures when capable.
- The gift shall not be made if the incapable person expresses a wish to the contrary.
- The SDA sets limits on the quantum of charitable gifts.
With these parameters in mind, coupled with carefully documenting all expenditures and retaining supporting vouchers, an attorney for property can hope to have a smoother ride when satisfying accounting obligations in respect of the administration.
Thanks for reading and have a great day,
Natalia R. Angelini
Some other blog posts that might interest you are:
Previously on our blog and podcast, we discussed Tarantino v. Galvano, 2017 ONSC 3535 (S.C.J.) in the context of the counterclaim for quantum meruit and the costs decision of the Hon. Justice Kristjanson.
Tarantino v. Galvano arose from a lawsuit that was commenced by two out of three Estate Trustees against the third Estate Trustee, Nellie, with respect to her actions as attorney for property for the Deceased, Rosa (i.e. Nellie’s actions while the Deceased was still alive but incapable of managing her own property).
Rosa had two daughters, Nellie and Giuseppina. Giuseppina died before Rosa. Guiseppina’s daughters were the other two Estate Trustees and they are beneficiaries of the Rosa’s Estate along with Nellie. For the better part of her life, Nellie lived with Rosa. She took care of her mother after her father’s death. Nellie and her son were also Rosa’s caregivers as Rosa’s health declined until Rosa’s death in 2012.
Rosa and Nellie owned the home that they lived in together. Rosa held an 80.3% interest and Nellie held an 19.62% interest. Pursuant to Rosa’s 2005 Will, Nellie had a right of first refusal to purchase the home from Rosa’s Estate. In 2008, on the advice of counsel while Rosa was incapable, Nellie entered into an agreement between herself and Rosa. The agreement provided for a transfer of Rosa’s interest in the home and 75% of Rosa’s pension income to Nellie in exchange for Nellie’s caregiving services. The agreement was in writing and it was signed by Nellie. Nellie signed for herself and for Rosa, in her capacity as Rosa’s attorney for property.
Even though the Court found that Nellie was a good daughter who held up her end of the bargain by caring for Rosa, the agreement was set aside because it was a self-dealing transaction that did not meet the requirements of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992:
“ Under the Substitute Decisions Act, Nellie could only enter into the agreement to transfer the house and pension income if it was “reasonably necessary” to provide for Rosa’s care, which I find it was not. As a fiduciary, an attorney for property is “obliged to act only for the benefit of [the donor], putting her own interests aside”: Richardson Estate v. Mew, 2009 ONCA 403 (CanLII), 96 O.R. (3d) 65, at para. 49. An attorney is prohibited from using the power for their own benefit unless “it is done with the full knowledge and consent of the donor”: Richardson Estate, at paras. 49-50. Rosa lacked capacity at the time of the Agreement, and the transfer of the house and pension income therefore were not done with Rosa’s full knowledge and consent.”
The “reasonably necessary” test was assessed, as of the time of the transfer, rather than from hindsight and it was determined that the decision to transfer 80.3% of a home and 80% of Rosa’s pension income at the outset of care was “an imprudent agreement which benefitted Nellie beyond that ‘reasonably necessary’ to provide adequately for Rosa’s care” (see paragraphs 34-49 for the Court’s analysis of this issue).
As a set off, Nellie’s quantum meruit claim was successful and you can click here for Ian Hull and Noah Weisberg’s podcast on this particular issue. While there was blended success to all parties involved, none of the three Estate Trustees were entitled to indemnification. Our discussion of the denial of costs can be found here and the Endorsement can be found here.
Thanks for reading!
A “power” is an authority to act, whereas a “duty” is an obligation. A duty of an estate trustee compels her to act, or prohibits her from acting in certain situations. A power, on the other hand, allows her to act in a certain way, subject to her discretion.
An estate trustee faces potential personal liability from unauthorized actions in the administration of an estate. Although, generally a will prescribes specific powers and duties for an estate trustee when it comes to the administration of the estate, there may also be a situation which the will simply does not contemplate.
As an estate trustee, or even as a beneficiary under such a will, how does one assess what an estate trustee can and cannot do?
The Trustee Act, RSO 1990, c. T23, as amended, is helpful in determining what an estate trustee’s powers and duties are, in the absence of a clear direction from a will.
It is not unusual for an estate trustee to be given discretion with respect to the exercise of administrative powers conferred to manage the estate. However, she may also be given the authority to allocate estate property to the beneficiaries. That kind of power is referred to as dispositive power or discretion and may require an estate trustee to do such things as, divide income and/or capital between beneficiaries at a time of her choosing.
Generally, the powers of an estate trustee will depend on the specific nature of the estate. For example, if the estate consists of property that is to be administered as an investment, the estate trustee will likely be allowed a power of sale, a power to mortgage, and a power to lease. The estate trustee must have the power to keep the property intact as well as meet all financial claims of third parties. An estate trustee will also generally have the power to insure any real property, against loss or damage.
With respect to expenses related to the estate, the estate trustee who believes that an expense is properly incurred, may either pay for it directly from the estate property or pay for the expense personally and later recover the corresponding amount. It is important to note, however, that a court may later disallow an expense if it concludes that it was not properly incurred.
In exercising each power that the estate trustee might have, she must keep in mind that there are certain duties that limit her powers.
- If a power of sale is to be exercised, she cannot delegate it to a third party and later escape responsibility in the event that there is an issue, on the ground that she did not choose the purchaser.
- An estate trustee cannot sell a property to herself, a beneficiary, or a third party with the agreement that she will then re-purchase the said property.
- If the estate trustee sells the trust property, not only must she be honest, but also show a reasonable level of care and skill in her conduct, throughout the transaction. For example, she should not convey title until payment is received, and if she does do so and there is a resulting loss to the estate, there may be personal liability.
An estate trustee with significant discretion in administering the estate can certainly be put in a difficult position with respect to how such discretion is to be exercised. Unfortunately, there are few guidelines available on that end, short of exercising one’s own good sense.
Thanks for reading.
Find this blog interesting? Please consider these other related posts:
Estate Trustees’ Standard of Care