MAKING AND REVOKING OF BENEFICIARY DESIGNATIONS - PART III
In our ongoing discussion of beneficiary designations, today's focus will be on the hallmarks of a valid revocation by Will.
As we discussed yesterday, section 52 of the Succession Law Reform Act provides an overview of the legal requirements of the revocation of a beneficiary designation.
One of the requirements of the statute was that a revocation of a beneficiary designation in a Will must relate "expressly to the designation, either generally or specifically."
So, for instance, a holograph Will (a valid unwitnessed Will when made entirely in the handwriting of the testator and signed by him) that lists all of the testator's assets and references those assets that are RRSPs as such, and proceeds to thereafter list the beneficiaries of the estate to share in the assets does NOT constitute a revocation of a beneficiary designation. (Laczova Estate v. House [2001] O.J. No.4992 (Ont. C.A)).
In that case, the Court ruled that the person administering a plan must know with sufficient certainty who the designated beneficiary is. There cannot be an "implied" designation. If a number of beneficiaries are to share in the estate, and the assets are listed to include RRSPs, such beneficiaries cannot be said to be beneficiaries of the plan.
For a Will to revoke a previous designation made by instrument, there must be a clear reference to the previous designation. "By its very language, s.52(1) renders a revocation in a Will that fails to relate expressly to the designation made by instrument ineffective to accomplish that purpose." (Burgess v. Burgess Estate (2000) 52 O.R. (3d) 61.)
Have a great day, David --------
