Toronto Estate Law Blog : Toronto Estate Lawyer : Hull & Hull Law Firm : Trust Mediation and Succession Planning : Serving Ontario, Ottawa, Mississauga, Hamilton

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the four years or so that have passed since Pecore was decided, the courts have had the chance to consider the case on several occasions and in various contexts. In decisions ranging from disputes involving family law, estates law, to even the seizure of property as a result of a crime, parties have argued both for and against the presumption of resulting trust using the framework as laid out by Pecore. Throughout all of these diverging fact patterns, however, one thing has held true. The court will always look to what the intention of the transferor was at the time the transfer was made. Some of the factors that may be important in this regard are:

·                    Wording of the document;

·                    The use of the property;

·                    The tax treatment of the property;

·                    Circumstantial evidence, like degree of friendship or closeness;

·                    Evidence of actual intention;

·                    Wording of the Will;

·                    Whether a power of attorney was granted, as this may show an appreciation of the distinction between granting the power and gifting the right of survivorship; and

·                    Intention subsequent to a transfer (this is not automatically excluded, but it must be relevant to the intention of the transferor at the time of the transfer, and the judge must assess the reliability of this evidence and determine what weight it should be given, guarding against evidence that is self-serving or that tends to reflect a change in intention).

Thanks for reading,

Natalia Angelini - Click here for more information on Natalia Angelini. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Nova Scotia judge recently ruled that a lottery prize was not assumed to be mutual asset to be divided upon the breakdown of a common-law relationship.

The National Post recently reported on a man and a woman who had been living together for a number of years and had won $50,000 on a scratch-and-win ticket. The ticket had been purchased by the man. Notwithstanding the fact that the couple had previously shared winnings, the winnings were deposited into a joint account, and part of the winnings were used for a down payment on a property that they both owned, the court found that there was no prior agreement to share the winnings.

(In another recent Ontario case, the judge found that in absence of cogent evidence of a clear intent to share winnings, there will be no requirement to share.)

Had the couple been married, there would have been a presumption that the lottery winnings were joint.

In Ontario, s. 14 of the Family Law Act creates a presumption that in the case of married spouses, the fact that property is held in the names of spouses as joint tenants is proof, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the spouses intended to own the property as joint tenants, and money on deposit in the name of both spouses shall be deemed to be in the name of the spouses as joint tenants. The provision does not apply to common-law spouses.

What are the possible lessons from this?

1. If you are buying lottery tickets with someone else, be they a friend or unmarried spouse, have some agreement in place to share the winnings.
2. As Beyonce says, if you liked it, then you should have put a ring on it.

Thank you for reading.

Paul E. Trudelle - Click here for more information on Paul Trudelle.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Are joint GICs to be considered differently from other jointly held accounts when considering whether the proceeds of such accounts are subject to a presumption of resulting trust for the estate of the deceased account holder?  Please read on.

In Pecore v. Pecore, the Supreme Court of Canada considered that, because it is common for elderly parents to hold accounts jointly with adult children for banking purposes, the starting presumption should be in favour of including the funds in the parent's estate. The adult child will then have the onus of proving that the parent intended to gift the funds to him or her.  The Court also addresses the evidence that may be used to defeat the presumption and prove that the parent intended to gift the funds in the account, including the following considerations: (i) whether the account documents show the parent's intent, (ii) who controlled and used the funds prior to the parent's death, (iii) whether the deceased parent had a power of attorney, and (iv) who paid the taxes on the account prior to the parent's death.  These considerations are fact-sensitive and that the trial judge is to consider the totality of the evidence and the weight to be placed on any particular factor. 

In Videchak v. Giarratano, a 2009 decision of Justice Matheson of the Ontario Superior Court, his Honour, applying Pecore, found that a joint bank account used to pay debts was impressed with a resulting trust for the benefit of the deceased parent.  In contrast, His Honour differentiated a jointly held GIC which was noted to be a savings vehicles and not for the payment of debts.  In the absence of a characteristic associated with such daily banking, the Court was of the view that the identification of the GIC as joint with right of survivorship was sufficiently determinative of the deceased's intention respecting that asset. As such, it passed to the joint account holders.

David M. Smith - Click here for more information on David Smith.
 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Listen to Managing Estate Issues

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag talk about how to manage an estate dispute as opposed to preventing it. They use an example of a joint account shared between 'Mom' and 'daughter' to examine the best way to approach posthumous problems and misunderstandings.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Listen to Piszczek v. Zurawska

This week on Hull on Estates, Christopher Graham and Paul Trudelle discuss the recent decision in the case of Piszczek v. Zurawska that demonstrates the application of a resulting trust of joint accounts.

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Listen to  Passing of Accounts and a Joint Retainer

This week on Hull on Estates, Craig Vander Zee and David Smith discuss conflicts of interest during Passing of Accounts trials and rules of professional conduct.

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a recent Ontario decision, Tiedemann v Tiedemann, the court considered whether the deceased had intended to gift to his sister the balance of funds in a joint account held by the both of them.

The sister argued that her brother intended to gift to her the balance of the funds as he did not have a good relationship with his son. The son of the deceased, the sole beneficiary of his estate, contented the funds belonged to the deceased’s estate on the basis of a resulting trust. The court found as the deceased was the only contributor to the account, the sister had to rebut the presumption of a resulting trust and as she was neither his spouse nor his child, she derived no benefit from the presumption of advancement.

Referencing the Supreme Court of Canada decisions of Pecore v. Pecore and Madsen Estate v. Saylor, the court looked at the evidence to determine the deceased’s actual intention. The court found the testimony by the deceased’s lawyer and a bank employee indicated that the deceased was interested in providing his sister with the authority to manage his finances and had not intended to gift her funds.

Weighing the evidence, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the resulting trust had not been rebutted and the intention of the deceased was to have his sister assist with bill payments if he became incapable.

To learn more about joint accounts, listen to Episode HOESP #60  where Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag discuss Percore v Pecore or read the transcribed version.

Thanks for reading,

Diane Vieira

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Both of the recent Supreme Court of Canada joint account/resulting trust decisions of Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] SCC 17 and Madsen Estate v. Saylor, [2007] SCC 18 involved joint accounts between deceased and child.

It is worth considering whether the decisions will impact cases involving joint accounts between deceased and non-children. (And please note I'm not addressing the impact on situations involving children, which is considerable and needs much more analysis than a blog).

The SCC's strong statements confirming the presumption of resulting trust do not necessarily change the law as it pertains to non-children situations. However, the rarified source of the decisions could help Estate Trustees asserting resulting trusts over joint accounts with non-children. Consider:

The presumption of resulting trust therefore alters the general practice that a plaintiff (who would be the party challenging the transfer in these cases) bears the legal burden in a civil case. Rather, the onus is on the transferee to rebut the presumption of resulting trust. (Pecore, para 25)

Of course, the presumption of resulting trust means that it will fall to the surviving joint account holder to prove that the transferor intended to gift the right of survivorship to whatever assets are left in the account to the survivor. Otherwise, the assets will be treated as part of the transferor's estate to be distributed according to the transferor's will. (Pecore, para 54)

Not really different from pre-existing caselaw, but the SCC rarely enters the realm of Estates and Trusts law. When it does, lawyers pay rapt and lasting attention. Even confirmation of pre-existing common law can have quite an effect.

No doubt every Estate Trustees claiming resulting trusts over joint accounts by a deceased with non-children will be referring to these cases.

Thanks for reading.

Sean Graham

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Listen to "Joint Accounts"

Read the transcribed version of  "Joint Accounts"

During Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Podcast  Episode #60, Ian and Suzana discussed a recent case, Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, from the Supreme Court of Canada. This decision concerned the issue of jointly held accounts.

Ian and Suzana discussed the consequences of joint accounts for adult children, minor children and dependent adult children.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court of Canada released decisions in Saylor v. Brooks ("Saylor") and Pecore v. Pecore ("Pecore") yesterday, which are seminal cases on the issue of joint accounts.

As many of the readers will know, joint accounts are a hotly debated topic in estate litigation. When an account is held jointly between two individuals, both hold an equal, undivided share. If one of the joint owners dies, the other is left with the entire interest in the account.

Previous decisions on the issue of joint accounts have varied but courts typically approached the issue by presuming that if the account was held jointly between a parent and a child, the parent intended to gift the money to the child (the presumption applied even if the child was an adult and financially independent). It was then up to the challenger to prove otherwise.

In Saylor and Pecore, the Supreme Court essentially reversed the presumption in the case of adult children.

The Supreme Court ruled that because it is very common for elderly parents to hold accounts jointly with adult children for banking purposes, the starting presumption should be in favour of including the funds in the parent's estate. The adult child will then have the onus of proving that the parent intended to gift the funds to him or her.

In the case of minor children, the old presumption of a gift will still apply, based on the assumption that parents intend to support their minor children.

While the clarity of a final ruling on how to approach joint accounts will likely be welcomed, there may remain some uncertain as to the evidence necessary to rebut the presumption. And hence, more litigation to come.

Have a nice weekend,
Jason Allan

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Joint accounts are a common tool in estate planning. Where accounts are held by two individuals jointly, both hold an equal and undivided share. When one dies, their interest terminates, and the surviving joint owner is left with the entire account. This results in numerous benefits from an estate planning perspective. However, it often also results in numerous lawsuits. The latest issue of Law Times includes an article which considers the controversial subject of joint accounts.

In “Awaiting Certainty on Jointly Held Assets,” Christopher Guly considers the debate over how to adjudicate challenges to jointly held accounts. He examines two decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Saylor v. Brooks and Pecore v. Pecore. Both were recently heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The facts in Saylor and Pecore are somewhat similar in that both involve challenges brought by beneficiaries to accounts that were jointly held between a Deceased and his daughter. In both cases, the beneficiaries argued that the Deceased did not intend for the surviving daughter to acquire the entire account and that the funds should be returned to the Deceased’s estate.

In considering the beneficiaries’ claims, the Court diverged from the historic reliance on presumptions. In the past, a transfer of money or property between strangers was presumed to be a loan, while a transfer between a father and his wife and/or children was a presumed gift. Of course, the presumptions only operated as starting points and were rebuttable.

In Saylor and Pecore, the Court ruled that it must first consider the totality of the evidence and determine the intention of the Deceased at the time the joint account was created. Only if intention cannot be clearly determined will the Court then turn to the presumptions.

Sounds simple? Well, as Guly points out by reference to discussions with practitioners, including Ian Hull, the decisions raise numerous concerns. Namely, what evidence do you use to prove intention? What if you do not have available evidence? How much evidence is necessary to avoid the presumption?

I will be interested in reading the Supreme Court’s answers to these difficult questions.

For more background information on legal issues surrounding joint accounts, check out Ian and Suzana’s previous blogs found in the "Joint Accounts" category on the blogpage.

Thanks for reading.

Jason 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link