Can an Email Change a Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation in Saskatchewan?

In a recent Saskatchewan case, Love v. Love, 2011 SKQB 176 (CanLII), the question arose whether an email constituted a sufficient declaration to change the beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy.

In the case, an ex-wife applied for a declaration that she was the designated beneficiary of her deceased ex-husband’s group life insurance policy. The deceased and his ex-wife were divorced. They had executed a separation agreement in which no mention was made of the deceased’s life insurance policy. Following the divorce, the deceased emailed his insurer to advise that he wished to change the beneficiary of his insurance policy from his ex-wife to his adult son. The subject line of his email was “Change of Beneficiary” and the email stated “Due to my recent divorce I would like to change the beneficiary on my pension etc. (from my former wife to my son.) Can you provide me with what ever paper work is required and I will fill them out and return them to you. Thanks.”  The deceased was subsequently sent the change forms by the insurer. While the deceased partially completed the forms naming one of his three sons as the beneficiary, he did not sign or submit the change forms before his death.  The deceased died intestate. Following his death, both the deceased’s ex-wife and the son named in the partially completed change forms claimed the life insurance proceeds.  

The Court was required to consider whether the deceased’s email was a sufficient declaration within the meaning of s. 133(e) of the Saskatchewan Insurance Act (the “SIA”) to change the beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy. Section 133(e) defines the term “declaration” as follows:

“declaration” means an instrument signed by the insured:
(i)   with respect to which an endorsement is made on the policy; or
(ii)  that identifies the contract; or
(iii) that describes the insurance or insurance fund or a part thereof;
in which he designates, or alters or revokes the designation of, his personal representative or a beneficiary as one to whom or for whose benefit insurance money is to be payable;

Following the decision in Re Buckmeyer Estate, 2008 SKQB 141 (CanLII), the Court held that an email can be considered a document signed by the deceased and that an email can be a sufficient declaration to change the beneficiary designation in a life insurance policy where it meets all of the requirements in s. 133 of the SIA . However, the Court concluded that in the present case the deceased’s email was not a sufficient declaration on the basis that the insurance policy was not described sufficiently clearly and there was no clear direction with respect to new beneficiary. While the deceased’s email included reference to pension plan, no specific reference was made to his group life insurance policy. The Court stated that the use of term “etc.” did not broaden the email to include the life insurance. Additionally, the Court stated that there was no clear direction with respect to a new beneficiary – while the email refers to “his son” it does not name the son in question.  The Court, therefore, concluded that the requirements under s. 133(e) of the SIA were not met and the ex-wife remained the beneficiary.

Thanks for reading,

Saman M. Jaffery

Life Insurance Locator Service

 

Ever wonder if (or wish that) you might be the lucky beneficiary of a hefty life insurance policy left to you by some benevolent benefactor? Well now you can find out if your wishes have come true. 

A life insurance policy locator service created and maintained by MIB Solutions Inc. allows you to search 170 million records to see who may have named you (or your client) as a beneficiary. The database includes policies collected from virtually every North American carrier involved in life insurance. The hit rate is 30%. An executor, administrator, a surviving spouse or other relative eligible for appointment may be entitled to order the report.  Policy Locator can make it easy to discover life insurance benefits you may not have realized existed.

How to Submit a Request

  1. Download the search request form and fill in the required information. 
  2. Include an original death certificate, containing an official seal, with the request form.
  3. Include a $75.00 check (payable to MIB Solutions, Inc.) or money order in U.S. currency.
  4. Mail the above items to MIB Solutions at the address listed below or supplied on the form.

Your Policy Locator search report and the "Policy Locator Research Primer" will be mailed to you shortly thereafter.

Mailing Address:
MIB Solutions, Inc.
50 Braintree Hill Park
Suite 400
Braintree, MA 02184-8734

Good Luck!

Sharon Davis 

Death and Taxes and RRSPs (Oh My!)

The tax treatment of RRSPs on an annuitant’s death is something that often confuses (and perplexes) beneficiaries of an estate.  I’ve seen more than one situation where the residual beneficiaries of an estate are distressed to find out that the estate is picking up the tax bill for an RRSP being transferred to a named beneficiary…the argument being that they, as residual beneficiaries, should not have to pay taxes associated with funds be transferred to someone else. 

The general rule is that absent a tax-deferred rollover (more on that in a minute), the fair market value of the RRSP on the annuitant’s death is treated as income and must be included in the annuitant’s terminal return (tax return that is filed for the year of death). 

As noted above, there are a couple of situations where the taxes associated with an RRSP can be avoided by the estate.  The first is where the designated beneficiary is the annuitant’s spouse or common law partner; the other is where the beneficiary is the annuitant’s financially dependent child or grandchild.    

Where the beneficiary is a spouse and a physically/mentally infirm child or grandchild, the RRSP can be rolled-over to the beneficiary.  Where the beneficiary is a minor child or grandchild (who isn’t infirm) the proceeds of the RRSP can be used to purchase an annuity that will make payments annually until the minor has reached 18 (with such payments being taxed).  However, if the children/grandchildren are over 18 and not infirm no tax deferral will be available. 

It is worth noting that the tax liability the estate might incur is related only to the value of the RRSP on the annuitant’s death.  Once the recipient starts withdrawing funds, s/he will be liable for the tax, not the estate.

If you want to know more about the tax treatment of RRSPs on death, check out the Canada Revenue Agency’s memorandum on the issue. 

Have a great day!

Megan F. Connolly 

An Annuity by Will

Annuities are often employed when an individual plans his or her estate. We have covered different aspects of annuities on past blogs on Hull on Estates.

A testator, for example, may choose to have one child’s portion of the future estate placed into an annuity that will create a flow of money over time. The child would have access to the cash flow, but not necessarily access to the principal amount. 

In September 2008, Gayle Reid applied to the Superior Court of Justice for an interpretation.  The claimant’s father, Bernard Wiesberg, died and left an annuity to his friend, Avonne Richter (also identified as his common-law spouse). Minimum annual payments of the annuity were directed in the Will to Ms. Richter who received them from 2003 through to 2007. 

The Applicant was to receive the residue of her father’s estate.  A 2005 Order by Dandie  J.  required Ms. Richter to designate Ms. Reid as the beneficiary.  (A provision of the Income Tax Act required the beneficiary to be named, otherwise the retirement income fund would have collapsed, defeating the testator's intent.)

The issue arose when Ms. Richter, who received the previous annual annuity payments in arrears up to 2006, chose to take the $17,015.57 payment in January, in advance for that year. Ms. Richter died on April 17, 2007.

The Applicant sought an interpretation of her father’s Will, specifically regarding the annual payments. As the payments were for the “lifetime” of Ms. Richter, the Estate owed $12,027.44 to the Applicant because the Court reasoned that calculations must be made to the date of Ms. Richter’s death. Therefore a pro-rata calculation was “the only reasonable and fair manner to ensure the two gifts in the Will are honoured.”

If the annuity had been paid in arrears that December, Ms. Richter’s Estate would have been owed a pro-rata amount of the annuity for that year calculated to the date of her death.

Have a good day.

Jonathan

Tax Free Savings Accounts and Beneficiary Designations

 Starting last week, any resident of Canada over the age of 18 with a valid social insurance number can open up a tax-free savings account (TFSA) and make a contribution of up to $5,000 a year. Income earned inside a TFSA is not taxable and money can be withdrawn tax-free at any time. Click here to read a National Post article on TFSAs and what type of assets can be held within a TFSA.

 

When TFSAs were first introduced in the Federal Government’s 2008 budget, there were concerns with how TFSAs would be treated upon the death of the account holder.  TFSAs allow account holders to name a spouse or a common law partner as a “successor account holder” to allow the successor account holder to maintain the TFSA of the deceased without a reduction in their own contributions. Upon death, the value of the TFSA is not included in income but any income that accrues after death is subject to tax.

 

However, the federal government likely lacks the jurisdiction to give effect to successor account holder designations without also be named in testamentary documents and requiring probate. Beneficiary designations to allow assets to pass outside of probate are within the domain of provincial jurisdiction and the provincial legislation needs to be amended to allow for TFSA designations similar to RRSP beneficiary designations.

 

Currently, many Ontario financial institutions are providing for both a beneficiary designation and successor account holder be named when a TFSA is opened. The big unanswered question is if probate will be required or if a TFSA is an asset that passes outside of the estate.

Once the issue of beneficiary designations is settled, TFSAs may become another estate planning tool. 

 

Have a great day,

 

Diane Vieira

 

Guardianship in Canada - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning

 

Listen to Guardianship in Canada

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Suzana Popovic-Montag speaks with Rodney Hull about how the law has changed in Canada as it pertains to the appointment of guardians. Rodney suggests that today's laws (post-1994) are clearer than they were in the past.

If you have any comments, send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Continue Reading...

The Benefits of the Family Meeting - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning #141

 

Listen to The Benefits of the Family Meeting

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Suzana Popovic-Montag speaks with Rodney Hull about the benefits of holding a family meeting to discuss estate matters while the testator is still alive. They both extend their condolences to the family of Ted Rogers, who passed away today.

If you have any comments, send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Rose v. Rose - Hull on Estates #139

Listen to Rose v. Rose

This week on Hull on Estates, Rodney Hull and Jonathan Morse discuss the case of Rose v. Rose [which can be found at 24ETR(3D)217 or 81OR(3D)349]. The case is valuable and instructive as it  raises questions about rectification, rescission and removal of the trustees.

Feel free to send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.

Continue Reading...

Direct and Indirect Approaches to Estate Planning - Part 1

 

Listen to Direct and Indirect Approaches to Estate Planning - Part 1

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana start a discussion on their global philosophy toward the estate planning process. There are direct and indirect approaches to capacity and estate planning and in this episode, Ian and Suzana explore these approaches as they pertain to the choice of attorney.

If you have any comments, send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com or leave a comment on our blog.

Continue Reading...

The Interrelationship Between a Guardian of Property and a Trustee Under a Testamentary Trust - Hull on Estates Podcast # 133

 

Listen to:

The Interrelationship Between a Guardian of Property and a Trustee Under a Testamentary Trust

This week on Hull on Estates, Rick Bickhram and David M. Smith discuss the complications that can arise when an incapable person is both the subject of a guardianship order and the beneficiary of a testamentary trust.

Comments? Send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-350-6636, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estates blog.

 

Continue Reading...

Tax Treatment of RRSPs on an Annuitant's Death

With the deadline for RRSP contributions right around the corner, I thought it would be worthwhile to review the tax treatment of RRSPs on an annuitant’s death. 

Generally speaking, when an annuitant dies, the fair market value of the RRSP is attributed to the annuitant’s income during his or her final year of life and must be included on the terminal return. The result is that an RRSP will be generally taxed in the hands of the deceased. 

However, there are exceptions to this rule.  The estate can avoid paying the taxes on an RRSP if the following are the beneficiaries:

a)      The annuitant’s spouse or common-law partner; or

b)      The annuitant’s dependant child or grandchild. 

The tax implications for the above beneficiaries vary.  If the beneficiary is the spouse, common-law partner, or a dependant child or grandchild with a physical or mental infirmity, then tax can be delayed by transferring the funds to an RRSP or RRIF. 

A dependant child or grandchild (with no infirmity) has the option of staggering the tax consequences by purchasing an annuity that matures no later than his or her 18th birthday. 

However you choose to deal with your RRSPs when planning your estate, it is always a good idea to talk with your estate planner about the tax implications of any designations you are making. 

For more information, check out the Canada Revenue Agency’s memo on the “Death of an RRSP Annuitant”. 

Thanks for reading,

Megan F. Connolly  

The Core Issues Concerning Estate Taxes - Hull on Estates and Succession Planning Podcast # 91

Listen to The Core Issues Concerning Estate Taxes

This week on Hull on Estates and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana discuss the core issues surrounding estate taxes. Continue Reading...

Hall v McLaughlin - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Podcast #71

Listen to "Hall v McLaughlin"
Read the transcribed version of "Hall v McLaughlin"

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana discuss the case of Hall v McLaughlin. This case explores the issue of whether or not a mirror/mutual will written early in life is binding. It illustrates the importance of making your intentions clear to your spouse.

Click "Continue Reading" for the transcribed version of this podcast. Continue Reading...

Breaking the Ties

Yesterday I reviewed the decision of Holmes Estate (Re) [2007] B.C.J. No. 45. You will recall that a gift in the testator’s Will to “all my nieces and nephews” was interpreted in the circumstances to mean a bequest to the children of the testator’s siblings including the 18 nieces and nephews of the testator’s late wife.

One such niece, Patricia Meadows, had been married to Alfie Meadows. Alfie was seeking entitlement to a share in the residue of the estate belonging to Patricia, who had died before the testator. He was doing so on the basis of the language contained in the Will that if any of the testator’s nieces or nephews predeceased him, that person’s share was to be paid to their surviving spouse.

The problem for Alfie was that he had been convicted of Patricia’s murder! The Court quite justly denied Alfie entitlement to Patricia’s share in the estate by applying the general rule of public policy that a person is precluded from benefiting from a crime.

The irony in this case is that while Alfie’s crime didn’t pay for him, it did benefit the surviving nieces and nephews, as the gift was a class gift (when a member of the class is disqualified their share is divided amongst the remaining members).

While this case made for an interesting read, I can only hope that the decision will help deter similar claims from arising again.

Have a good day,

Natalia Angelini

Breach of Trust - Criminal Penalties

Yesterday I suggested that criminal charges in Estates, capacity and trust cases might become more common.

In R. v. Bunn (2000), C.C.C. (3d) 505,  the Supreme Court of Canada considered the sentencing of a Manitoba lawyer convicted of converting some $86,000 worth of trust monies to his own use. The accused acted as attorney for property for Soviet/Russian beneficiaries of Manitoba and Saskatchewan estates. He received monies in trust, but instead of paying it all to the beneficiaries, he redirected some of it to himself.

This conduct was discovered by the Law Society of Manitoba when conducting a spot audit of the accused. The accused was disbarred. Some compassion may be warranted: the accused cared for a disabled wife, was the sole income earner in the family, suffered financial woes for years, and lost his reputation and 20-year law career.

At trial the accused was sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary, but the Manitoba Court of Appeal substituted a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 5-3 decision, upheld the Appeal decision. The majority decided that the need for restorative justice and the benefits of reducing prison terms outweighed the minority’s desire to denounce the accused and promote general deterrence.

Lawyers tend to be easier targets in these cases because of the need to establish mens rea (the intent to commit a crime). It would be difficult for any competent lawyer to claim ignorance of proper usage of trust monies, but laypersons may be a different matter.

Thanks for reading.
Sean Graham

Estate Planning Considerations in the Context of Married and Unmarried Spouses - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Podcast #54

Listen to "Estate Planning Considerations in the Context of Married and Unmarried Spouses"

Read the transcribed version of "Estate Planning Considerations in the Context of Married and Unmarried Spouses"

During Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Episode #54, Ian and Suzana discuss how to avoid Will drafting problems when creating beneficiary designations for insurance trusts.

They also discuss the importance of including funeral arrangements in your Will, and the various Provincial approaches to the revocation of wills after marriage and after a divorce.

Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Podcast #53 - Beneficiary Designation Considerations for Spousal Trusts

Listen to "Beneficiary Designation Considerations for Spousal Trusts"

Read the transcribed version of "Beneficiary Designation Considerations for Spousal Trusts"

During Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Episode #53, Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag build on their last podcast regarding succession planning for married couples, and turn their focus to spousal trusts.

They discuss administrative expenses surrounding trusts, the circumstances that lead to surviving spouse litigation, and methods for ensuring the balance between beneficiary designations.

Don't be so literal! The importance of Testamentary Intent

In a recent decision out of Québec, Broodney v. Herzog [2006] Q.J. No. 14933, testamentary intent trumped the literal wording of a Will.

The testator had been involved in a loving relationship with Harry Broodney. They had lived together for twelve years. In a 1995 Will, the testator left Harry $25,000.00. In a 1998 Codicil, the gift was increased to $35,000.00, payable in monthly instalments of $600.00. In 1999, the testator executed a further Codicil, increasing the monthly payments to $1,000.00 but not changing the capital amount of the gift. Both the 1995 Will and the 1998 Codicil stated that the gift to Harry would lapse and be null and void, if he and the testator were “not living together” at the time of the latter’s death.

The issue for the Court of Québec was the meaning of the phrase “not living together”. At the time of the testator’s death, she had been living in a nursing home due to her deteriorating health. Her family consequently claimed that Harry was not entitled to the $35,000.00 gift.

The Court focused on the testator’s intentions. Her intent to benefit Harry was clear and uncontested. The Court held that the testator intended the phrase “not living together” to mean a “break up” with Harry. The evidence was clear that their loving relationship did not end when the testator involuntarily left Harry to reside in the nursing home. The evidence was also clear that the testator’s family was aware of the loving relationship. For the Court, the inability to physically live together could not be a reason for disinheriting Harry.

Not surprisingly, Harry asked for and received punitive damages as a result of the family’s refusal to honour the testator’s last wishes. The Court deemed the family’s refusal to be malicious and reckless.

The litigation could have been avoided by better wording in the Will. Drafting issues aside, the case is a good illustration of a Court employing common sense and testamentary intent to avoid an unjust result.

Have a great day!
Bianca

Dependant Support Claims and Joint Insurance Policies

Section 72(1) of Ontario’s Succession Law Reform Act allows a court to deem various assets that may normally fall outside of a deceased’s estate, to be part of the estate for the purposes of satisfying a dependant support claim. This usually includes “any amount payable under a policy of insurance effected on the life of the deceased and owned by him or her”. However, as demonstrated in Madore-Ogilvie (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ogilvie Estate [2006] E.G. No. 4654 (Div. Ct.), this provision will not normally capture insurance policies owned jointly by the deceased and a third party.

In Ogilvie Estate, the deceased was the father of six children (three of them minors) by five different women. Dependant support claims were made on behalf of two of the minor children. It was agreed that the deceased had failed to provide adequately for his minor children.

The issue before the court was whether a joint life insurance policy, issued to both the deceased and his spouse, could be included as part of the deceased’s estate under section 72(1) of the SLRA. The deceased and his spouse were both the owners and beneficiaries of the policy, which provided that the survivor of the two would receive the face amount of the policy on the death of the other. It was undisputed that the spouse had made the majority of the payments under the policy.

The applications judge held that the policy could be included as part of the estate. On appeal, a majority of the Divisional Court reversed this decision. The majority held that a jointly owned policy cannot be included as part of an estate merely because the deceased is one of the owners of the policy. The Court recognized that s. 72 of the SLRA was designed to counter the intentional depletion of an estate at the expense of dependants. However, there are transactions that “would be considered the normal personal commerce of an individual” and not necessarily undertaken to disenfranchise a dependant. In the case at hand, the majority ultimately decided that the contractual rights of the spouse to the joint policy trumped the needs of the deceased’s dependants.

Have a great day!
Bianca

Will Interpretation Problems and the Residue of an Estate

Yesterday, we set out the first of a series of interpretation problems identified by Rodney Hull, Q.C. that often arise in Wills. Today, we set out another common provision that tends to cause difficulty …

(1) THE RULE IN SAUNDERS v. VAUTIER (1841), Cr. & Ph. 240.

(2) THE CLAUSE - “The residue of my estate to A upon attaining age twenty-five years”.

(3) THE FACTS - A is nineteen years of age on testator’s death. There is no gift over in the event that A dies before attaining the age of twenty-five years.

(4) THE QUESTION -

(a) Is the gift:

(i) vested in possession?

(ii) vested in interest?

(iii) vested subject to being divested? or

(iv) contingent?

(b) When can A call for the gift?

(5) WHERE TO START RESEARCH -

(i) Theobald on Wills - page 603 - paragraphs 43 - 29.

(ii) Feeney’s Canadian Law of Wills, paragraphs 17.54 - 17.55.

(iii) Sheard, Hull and Fitzpatrick, Canadian Forms of Wills, page 214.



Interpretation Applications can be quite expensive and time consuming. To the extent that they can be avoided, with diligent research and the ultimate consent of the beneficiaries, together with the consent of the Public Guardian and Trustee and the Children’s Lawyer, if necessary, this may not be a bad thing!

All the best – Suzana.