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

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I have been practising in the area of estate litigation for a few years, I occasionally think that I have seen it all; that every recurring story I hear about a family war tends to lose its originality. Not true. Take for instance a recent story that was posted online in the Telegraph, involving a U.S. estate fight.

Tasha Tudor was from New England and has been described as the “unconventional Martha Stewart.” Ms. Tudor died at the age of 92 following complications from a stroke.  The basis of Ms. Tudor’s estate dispute centers on her decision to leave almost her entire estate to her eldest son, virtually cutting out her three other children. 

The oldest son argues that his late mother intended to cut out his three siblings from her estate because they were estranged from her. One of the siblings, a U.S. Air Force lawyer, who claims he was not estranged from his late mother, has asserted that the 2001 Will is invalid on the basis that his older brother unduly influenced his late mother.

The dispute has gotten so acrimonious between the siblings that they could not even agree what to do with their mother's ashes. On motion to the Court, it was ordered that Ms. Tudor’s ashes be divided in half, with one-half to be given to the oldest son and the other half to his siblings. Lawyers are now fighting over who is responsible for a snow plough bill!

It is reported that some of the last words by Ms. Tudor were “Oh, will there ever be a cat and dogfight when I die. But I don't care. I won't be here to see it.” 

It is often difficult to comprehend the harsh realities of litigation until you step into the shoes of one of the parties. I wonder if Ms. Tudor were alive to witness the severity of this dispute whether she would take back those words?

Thank you for reading

Rick Bickhram

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Toronto Star recently reported on Alzheimer’s disease, stating that “cases of the mind-robbing disease will more than double to 1.25 million within 30 years as baby boomers age”. 

With the numbers pointing upward as the population grays, a recent report by the Alzheimer Society, entitled Rising Tide: The Impact of Dementia on Canadian Society suggests the following steps to help reduce the impact of dementia:

1.                  Prevention programs based on healthy diet and physical activity that can delay the onset of dementia by two years, with a potential cost saving of $219 billion over the 30-year period.

2.                  Enhanced skill-building and support programs for family caregivers, many of whom suffer financial hardship because they must leave jobs to look after a relative with dementia.

3.                  Assigning a case manager to each newly diagnosed dementia patient and their caregivers, which could help the person remain at home longer and lessen the strain on the long-term-care system.

Today, annual funding for Alzheimer’s is approximately $24 million. The Toronto Star reports that if “nothing changes, this sharp increase in the number of people living with dementia will mean that by 2038, the total costs associated with dementia will reach $153 billion a year”. 

We have already seen a substantial influx with respect to Will challenges, particularly because there has been a big question mark about the testator’s capacity. The grim realty is that this will be a continuing problem that Estate Solicitors are going to have to tackle.

Thank you for reading.

Rick Bickhram

Rick Bickhram - Click here for more information on Rick Bickhram.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In keeping with yesterday’s blog on a British Columbia real estate matter, today I focus on another BC case - Albas v. Gabriel 2009 BCSC 198 - that involves the Indian Act, a federal statute. 

For a quick recap of the interplay between provincial and federal jurisdiction regarding estate matters and First Nations people living on reserves, I refer to David Smith’s 2007 blog: The Administration of Estates under the Indian Act. 

Albas v. Gabriel involved an action by the plaintiff, as executor of the estate, for a declaration proving the deceased's Will in solemn form.  The defendant beneficiaries appealed to the Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs because the Minister has jurisdiction to approve a Will made by an Indian and to confirm the appointment of an executor to administer the estate. Specificially, the Minister’s authority is provided by section 43 of the Indian Act.

A member of an Indian Band and a resident of a reserve, the deceased operated a trailer park and he was a “locatee” of the land because he owned “certificates of possession”: valuable assets that he left equally to his daughter and two step-children. This was just one of the businesses with which the deceased was involved.

The daughter challenged both the validity of the Will and the administration of the estate. The judge determined that the daughter believed that if the Will was declared invalid, she would inherit the entire estate.

Because of the Will challenge, the Minister transferred jurisdiction over the estate to the Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to s. 44(1).

Ultimately, the Court found that the Will was valid because it was not forged and the testator had capacity as well as knowledge of the Will which he approved.

Enjoy your day.

Jonathan

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A current Georgia case vividly illustrates the legal, emotional and moral complexity often involved in estates litigation.  According to the reports, Harvey Strother died at age 78, having succumbed to progressively severe alcoholism brought on by the tragic death of his daughter at age 23.  Strother had built up a formidable nest of car dealerships around Georgia, dying with a net worth of about US$37 million.  And a mistress 30 years his junior. 

At issue are 3 amendments to Strother's 1988 will in favour of his mistress.  The will had left the bulk of his estate to his wife, their children and grandchildren.  But one amendment gave his mistress a $7,900 monthly allowance, a second gave her health insurance and an island condo in Florida.   The third - signed about a month before Strother's death - gave her a Cape Cod cottage, a Florida boat slip and a Florida condo to her son.  By that time Strother was drinking 1.5 gallons of wine a day (about 6.8 liters, or 9 bottles of wine).

At trial, the jury upheld the first two amendments, worth about $4.5 million to the mistress.  However, the third one was invalid.  Strother, was allegedly drinking even before he signed it and brought to the lawyer's office by his mistress, and his signature was illegible. 

The family is appealing the two amendments that were upheld, one on the basis that the witnesses were not even present (the mistress is appealing the third amendment struck out by the jury).  Interestingly, the family is represented by Georgia's ex-Governor Roy Barnes, who points out that the requirement for two witnesses "is an elementary part of the law that has been there since the time of Edward II."  FYI, King Edward II, 1284 - 1327: yes, we deal with old law in estates litigation. 

Have a great day,

Chris Graham

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A Mareva injunction is a court order that freezes the assets of individuals or companies. It can be obtained without notice to the target individuals and/or companies and can then be extended on notice.

Mareva injunctions are usually employed in civil actions, typically situations involving fraud, where a plaintiff seeks to prevent a defendant from dissipating assets or removing them from the jurisdiction, pending final determination of the plaintiff’s action. 

In Will challenge proceedings, particularly involving large complex estates, a Mareva injunction may be of use in cases where there is a high risk of dissipation or removal of contested assets by one or more parties to the proceedings, thus defeating the purpose of the Will challenge.

A party seeking a Mareva injunction without notice to other affected parties must make out a strong case of dissipation or removal of assets, through sworn evidence. There is also a duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts and law, given that the affected parties are not able to defend against the injunction at first instance. Finally, the party seeking the injunction must give an undertaking as to damages. That is, the party must undertake to pay damages to the affected parties in the event that it is subsequently determined by a Court that the Mareva injunction should not have been granted. In Ontario, further to Rule 40.02, a Mareva Order obtained without notice is valid for ten days. It can then be extended by a Court, on notice to the affected parties. An affected party, once it receives notice, may immediately move to quash the injunction. 

A Mareva Order may prove a valuable tool in preserving contested estate assets in Will challenge proceedings. 

Have a great day!

Bianca La Neve

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today is the final installment of my discussion of Hix v. Ewachniuk Estate, 2008 CarswellBC 1300 (Hinkson J.).

After dismissing the will challenge on the basis of due execution, testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval, the court turned to the issue of undue influence. Despite the presence of suspicious circumstances, the court held that the challengers, not the propounder, had the burden of proving undue influence. However, while the son did not have the burden of disproving coercion, his evidence was to be tested against the preponderance of probabilities that rationally emerge out the all the evidence in the case.

The deceased was found to be vulnerable and dependant upon her son for all aspects of her existence. Conversely, the son was found to have an aggressive and domineering personality, both in general and with respect to his desire for absolute ownership of the family holding company.

The court found that the son was very caring of his mother. However, it did not accept his evidence on the issue of undue influence. The court asked a number of rhetorical questions as to why the mother would make the will that she did, despite the circumstances. The court concluded that that will was procured by the undue influence of the son.

The will was therefore found to be invalid.

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I discussed Hix v. Ewachniuk Estate, 2008 CarswellBC 1300 (Hinkson J.), and the finding of the judge that suspicious circumstances existed, placing the onus back on the propounder to prove testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval.

As to testamentary capacity, the court referred to the oft – quoted decision of Banks v. Goodfellow, and the test for testamentary capacity.

It noted that the capacity required to direct the distribution of one’s estate by Will is “modest”. To be of a sound and disposing mind and memory, a testator must:

1. be aware that they are making a will that takes effect on their death;
2. understand the nature and extent of the estate to be disposed of by Will;
3. be aware of those having a claim to the estate;
4. have no disorder of the mind.

The court reviewed the evidence of the plaintiffs and the witnesses (other than the son) as to testamentary capacity. The court was satisfied that on the preponderance of the evidence, the testator had the necessary capacity to direct the disposition of her estate by will as of the date of the will.

As to knowledge and approval, the court noted that a suspicious circumstances raised in the case required that the son, as the propounder of the will, prove that the deceased knew of and approved of the contents of the will. The court did not accept the evidence of the son to the effect that the deceased had to carefully read her will and discuss it with him on numerous occasions. Despite this, the court concluded that the deceased knew of the provisions of the will that she signed.

To this point, the will survived most of the challenges to it. Will the will be accepted to probate? Can it withstand the final challenge: undue influence? Tune in tomorrow.

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I introduced the will challenge decision of Hix v. Ewachniuk Estate, 2008 CarswellBC 1300 (Hinkson J.).

After disposing of the issue of due execution, the court turned to the doctrine of “suspicious circumstances”. The court referred to these Supreme Court of Canada decision of Vout v. Hay, where it was held that suspicious circumstances maybe raised by circumstances surrounding the preparation of the will, circumstances tending to call into question the capacity of the testator; or circumstances tending to show that the free will of the testator was overborne by acts of coercion or fraud.

Generally, the propounder of a will has the legal burden with respect to due execution, knowledge and approval, and testamentary capacity. However, upon proof that the will was duly executed, the propounder is aided by the rebuttable presumption that the testator knew and approved of the contents and had the necessary testamentary capacity.

The burden of establishing suspicious circumstances rests on those attacking the will. If evidence can be adduced which, if accepted, would tend to negative knowledge and approval or testamentary capacity, this burden is satisfied and the legal burden reverts to the propounder.

In Hix, it was the son who drafted the challenged will. The Court quoted from Vout v. Hay as follows:

“… if a party writes or prepares a Will, under which he takes a benefit, that is a circumstance that ought generally to excite suspicion of the Court, and calls upon it to be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in support of the instrument, in favour of which it ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed, and it is judicially satisfied that the paper propounded does express the true Will of the deceased.”

The court concluded that the son should never have agreed to draw the will for the deceased. The fact that he did in the circumstances “does more than raise suspicion; it cries out for it.”

Tomorrow: testamentary capacity, and knowledge and approval

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I recently attended a breakfast seminar hosted by Hull & Hull LLP, where I listened to my colleague, Natalia Angelini, speak about a testator's capacity to give instructions for the preparation of a Will.   
 
During Natalia's discussion, she spoke about the varying levels of capacity for different transactions.  Natalia also touched on the traditional grounds that a Will could be challenged.   I was particularly intrigued to learn that the circumstances surrounding the failure of a testator to make a will could be advanced as forming the basis for a will challenge.  

One of the traditional grounds for a will challenge is undue influence.  At its very basic form, undue influence occurs as a result of pressure brought to bear on the testator in giving instructions and executing the testamentary document.  The pressure brought on the testator, must be of such a degree that the testator has reached the point of thinking, "It is not my wish, but I must do it".

In contrast, "reverse" undue influence (as it has been called) occurs where a testator is being prevented from signing a Will.

As this interesting topic continues to evolve, I am confident that the estate & trust bar will be looking on with interest.

Rick Bickhram

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has commonly been assumed that a will challenge cannot proceed prior to the death of the testator. The will speaks only upon the death of the testator, and a testator enjoys testamentary freedom to revise or otherwise revoke the will at any time prior to death, or to deal freely with his or her assets.

However, as reported in the New Jersey Law Blog, a recent California case has determined that when a conservator secures court approval of an estate plan while an individual is still alive, any challenge to the will must be made at that time, and not after the death of the individual.

In Murphy v. Murphy, the Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, Docket No. A115177, the testator had suffered a stroke. A conservator was appointed for the testator, who sought court approval of the testator’s estate plan. A son, who was left out of the estate plan, was put on notice and did not challenge the estate plan.

After death, the son sought to challenge the estate plan. The Court of Appeal held that the son’s claim was barred on the basis of “collateral estoppel”. The son was not allowed to relitigate matters that were litigated in a prior proceeding.

The blog’s author observes that the decision “essentially bulletproofs the will of a person found incompetent and placed under the protection of a conservator, if the Court approves a revised estate plan with appropriate notice being given to all parties in interest who may have any basis to object.”

In Ontario, there is no similar procedure for approval of an estate plan. In fact, an attorney for property or guardian for property is expressly barred from making a will on behalf of the incapable person.  

However, at least two Ontario decisions (Stern v. Stern and Weinstein v. Weinstein (Litigation Guardian of) have commented to the effect that the court should not “close its eyes to the fact that litigation among expectant heirs is no longer deferred as a matter of course until the death of an incapable person”.

Paul Trudelle

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Or, listen to the audio version of Will Challenge Litigation - Part 5

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana continue their discussion on the Will Challenge Process, step by step.

They continue to discuss the process of will challenges in closer detail. What makes a good case? They talk about the five different grounds upon which a will can be challenged:

1. Lack of testamentary capacity
2. Existence of suspicious circumstances
3. Will not having been properly executed
4. Existence of undue influence
5. Possibility of fraud

If you have any comments, send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com or call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985 or leave a comment on our blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As I am sipping on my coffee this morning, I am thinking to myself, who can commence a will challenge? 

A will challenge can be commenced pursuant to 75.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 75.06(1) is a procedural remedy that permits any person who appears to have a financial interest in an estate to apply for directions or move for directions in another proceeding.   This begs the question, who is considered to have a financial interest in an estate? This issue was addressed in the Ontario Superior Court (Divisional Court) decision of Smith v. Vance.

In Smith, the Deceased died on October 27, 1995, leaving a will dated January 5, 1994 which named the applicants as the estate trustees.   A notice of objection was filed by three individuals who were cousins of the deceased through marriage. The objection was subsequently struck by the Honourable Justice Perras during the motion for directions on the grounds that the objectors did not have a financial interest in the subject-Estate. In this hearing, the objectors appealed this decision.

The objectors asserted their financial interest in the Estate based on their close relationship with and their physical and financial assistance for the deceased. There was also an earlier destroyed will in which the objectors were named beneficiaries. Finally a letter was allegedly written by the deceased wherein she acknowledged that the objector will have an interest in her estate.

The court acknowledged that a financial interest is not defined in the Rules of Civil Procedure. In such cases, words should be taken by its natural meaning. Black's legal dictionary defines financial interest as an interest equated with money or its equivalent. The court held that claimants must do more than simply assert an interest. They must present sufficient evidence of a genuine interest and meet a threshold test to justify inclusion as a party. The interest need not be conclusive evidence at that stage but must be evidence capable of supporting an inference that the claim is one that should be heard. 

If the evidence offered by an objector is capable of supporting an inference that the claim raises a genuine issue, and thus is one that should be heard, the objector is entitled to standing and should be granted permission to be added as a party. The appeal was allowed and the order by the Honourable Justice Perras was set aside.

I hope you had fun reading today's blog. Until tomorrow,

Rick Bickhram