Tag: Support After Death

24 Nov

A Perceived Gap in Alberta’s Succession Law

Kira Domratchev Estate Litigation, Support After Death Tags: , , , , , 0 Comments

I came across an interesting report on Alberta’s succession law and what is perceived as a gap that has affected family maintenance and support in the province. The report was published by the Alberta Law Reform Institute (ALRI) and can be found here.

In accordance with the Family Law Act in Alberta, a child can apply for and may be entitled to support from a person standing in the place of a parent, when a couple separates. Under the Wills and Succession Act, however, which applies when a person dies, there is no provision addressing the distinction of a “person standing in the place of a parent”. What that means is that while a person who is characterized as a “person standing in the place of a parent” is alive, the child can apply for support under the Family Law Act but if this person dies, that same child has no ability to seek support from the Estate of this person “standing in the place of a parent”.

Consequently, the ALRI is of the view that there is a gap in the law that ought to be rectified on the basis of an equality argument, alone. This report was apparently recently sent to the province of Alberta but there has been no response, as of yet.

In comparing the provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act here in Ontario, it appears that the very issue raised by the ALRI is addressed by section 57(1) where the definition of a “child” includes a grandchild and a person whom the deceased has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of his or her family, except under an arrangement where a child is placed for valuable consideration in a foster home by a person having lawful custody.” [emphasis added]

Certainly, it is important that children be able to bring a support claim against the estates of their parents, where not appropriately provided for out of the estate, even where not formally adopted but clearly treated as a child.

It will be interesting to see what happens and what the province of Alberta will do, if anything, in response to this report from the ALRI.

Thanks for reading!

Kira Domratchev

Find this blog interesting? Please consider these other related posts:

Perils in the Succession of the Family Cottage

B.C.’s Wills, Estates and Succession Act: Claims May be Pursued by Beneficiaries

Testing the waters of Section 72(1)(d) of the Succession Law Reform Act

12 Feb

Does spousal support end on death?

James Jacuta Litigation, Support After Death Tags: , , 0 Comments

Family law has long been clear on the question of spousal support in that it is provided to satisfy the needs of the spouse during his/her lifetime and the entitlement to support does not survive the death of the recipient.

Whether this remains the status quo may have been put into question with the recent Alberta’s Court of Queen’s Bench decision in Marasse Estate. In this case, the couple’s separation agreement required the husband to pay monthly support to the wife for five years. The wife passed away after the husband had made only a few payments, and her estate trustee sought the remaining payments. The husband resisted the claim, asserting that the premise underlying the support was the wife’s need. As she no longer had need, he should not be required to make further payments.

The Court concluded that the estate was entitled to continue to receive the support payments. It reasoned that the contractual agreement of the parties created a juristic reason to continue support for the following reasons:

1.The separation agreement contained the fairly standard enurement clause, which provides that the agreement enures to the parties’ heirs, executors etc.

2. The separation agreement contained a non-reviewability clause that states: “entitlement, quantum, and duration of spousal support is non-reviewable and may not be varied on any material change of circumstances.”

3. The separation agreement was comprehensive, negotiated with give and take on both sides, and it should be considered as a whole.

4. Actual need is not expressed in the agreement to be a precondition to payment. For instance, if the converse to the husband’s argument were true, being that the wife remained in financial need and lived longer than five years, the wife would not have been able to collect any further amounts.

Notably, the parties had also turned their minds in the agreement to what would happen if the husband died before all payments were made, as he agreed to maintain life insurance to secure support in the event of his death.

The Court found that the agreement was unambiguous, and could not be set aside as the parties to it (1) intended it to be a full and final resolution, and (2) there were no new circumstances not reasonably anticipated that led to a situation that could not be condoned.

A recent article found here discusses the Court’s decision.

Thanks for reading and have a good day,

Natalia Angelini

18 May

Complications from Simultaneous Deaths

Natalia R. Angelini Estate Planning, Executors and Trustees, General Interest, In the News, Joint Accounts, RRSPs/Insurance Policies, Support After Death, Trustees, Uncategorized, Wills Tags: , , , , , , 0 Comments

In Ontario, if two people die at the same time or in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other, the property of each person shall be disposed of as if he or she had survived the other (see s. 55(1) of the SLRA).  In short, each person’s Will is administered as if the spouse predeceased. This outcome can be particularly problematic in various circumstances, a few of which I touch upon below.

Spouses with mirror wills.  Without a common disaster clause that would address circumstances where both spouses die simultaneously, there may be certain bequests that are triggered twice.  For instance, mirror wills may provide that (i) the residue of the testator’s estate is to be transferred to the spouse if he/she survives the other by 30 days, and (ii) if the spouse predeceases or fails to survive the other by 30 days, a specific bequest is gifted to Child #1, with the residue going to Child #2.  Since neither husband nor wife survived the other for30 days, Child #1 would get two specific bequests, one from each of the parents’ estates, reducing the entitlement of the residuary beneficiary, Child #2.

No alternate executor. Spouses often name the other as their executor.  If no alternate is named and they die simultaneously, the executor appointment would go on an intestacy (see s. 29 of the Estates Act), and the testator has lost the power to control who administers the estate.

Joint assets. Where joint tenants die at the same time, unless a contrary intention appears, the joint tenants are deemed to have held the property in question as tenants in common (see s. 55(2) of the SLRA).

Insurance proceeds. If the insured and the beneficiary die at the same time, the proceeds of a policy are to be paid as if the beneficiary predeceased the insured (see SLRA s. 55(4), and Insurance Act ss. 215 and 319). If there is no alternate beneficiary, and unless the insurance contract provides otherwise, the proceeds would be payable to the estate and subject to probate fees.

These examples serve to illustrate the value in having simultaneous deaths form part of your checklist when advising estate-planning clients.  For more on this topic, I encourage you to read this article and to watch/listen to my recent podcast with Rebecca Rauws.

Thanks for reading and have a great day,

Natalia R. Angelini

Other Articles You Might Be Interested In

Life and Death Under the Health Care Consent Act

Double Legacies – A Trap to Avoid

Polygamous Marriages and the SLRA

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR BLOG

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

CONNECT WITH US

TRY HULL E-STATE PLANNER SOFTWARE

Hull e-State Planner is a comprehensive estate planning software designed to make the estate planning process simple, efficient and client friendly.

Try it here!

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES

TWITTER WIDGET

  • Substantial Compliance and the Dalla Lana Decision Are you caught up on the changes to the Succession Law Reform A… https://t.co/dUxnFBSe35
  • Today's article: Substantial Compliance and the Dalla Lana Decision Read the full blog here:… https://t.co/s3c9YX1WFR
  • Interesting: Dependant support claims need to be served on “all interested parties” Read today's article to learn… https://t.co/sxqLVEWCu1
  • The @LawSocietyLSO provides assistance and guidance when you are trying to locate a Will. Read Last Friday's artic… https://t.co/hoJIrdbDVe
  • Thompson and Virtual Litigation Today's article explores the questions surrounding the fate of virtual litigation.… https://t.co/nQ4KgbPP2V
  • Last Thursday's article: Applying the new standard for limitation periods. Read the full blog here:… https://t.co/tiPOz7skaK