Trustee Compensation

Further to yesterday’s blog, in the case of McDougall Estate, the beneficiary complained about the trustee’s compensation on the passing of her accounts. In issue was whether the trustee’s compensation should be reduced because she:

  1. Made an improper distribution to a charity that was not authorized by the Will.
  2. Failed to make an inventory of the contents of the deceased’s house and failed to offer the beneficiary any of the deceased’s personal effects.
  3. Pre-took compensation.
  4. Paid too much in legal fees out of the estate.

The court found that even though the charitable gift failed because it was not a specified amount or share, the trustee’s interpretation of the Will was not unreasonable and the trustee was not liable for an innocent mistake, made in good faith. She was therefore not required to reimburse the estate and should not have her compensation reduced.

The contents of the house were of little value and had to be cleaned out for sale. The trustee never received any indication from the beneficiary that there was anything of sentimental value that she wished to receive. In the circumstances, the Court found that the compensation should not be reduced for the manner in which the trustee dealt with the personal effects.

The trustee pre-took compensation of 5% of the value of the estate as originally calculated but, after adjustments, she admittedly overpaid herself by $1,163.24. Estate trustees ought not to pre-take compensation unless authorized in the trust document or by approval of the executor’s accounts by the beneficiaries. The proper remedy was payment of interest on the amount pre-taken. Accordingly, the trustee was ordered to repay $1,163.24 plus interest of $360 to the estate.

It was not unreasonable for the trustee to seek legal advice to respond to the inquiries from the beneficiary’s lawyer. While amounts paid to respond to questions about the administration of the estate were not at first instance a proper charge to the estate, such costs were allowed because they were properly incurred by her to respond to the beneficiary’s challenges to her administration of the estate.

The payment of legal fees from the estate that ought to have been paid by the estate trustee is a form of pre-taking of compensation and so the estate trustee was liable for interest on that amount, which was fixed at $70.00.

Sharon Davis - Click here for more information on Sharon Davis

The Estate Trustee During Litigation - Hull on Estates #166

Listen to The Estate Trustee During Litigation

This week on Hull on Estates Megan Connolly and Craig Vander Zee discuss the topic of the estate trustee during litigation (ETDL). Their discussion is based off a paper Paul Trudelle prepared and spoke about at the Hull and Hull breakfast series on June 4, 2009. They look at the circumstances when you would need an ETDL, the procedure for appointing the ETDL and the powers and duties of the ETDL.

For more information on this topic, see:
Jordan Atin's article, The Estate Trustee During Litigation, in 'Estate Litigation' by Brian A. Schnurr. volume 2. 2nd ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2000)

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

Burris' Mausoleum Makes a Statement

Those who follow American politics have probably heard of Roland Burris. He is controversial Governor Rod Blagojevich’s choice to replace the Senate seat vacated by President –Elect Barack Obama. While the constitutional debate continues on whether or not Burris can be seated in the Senate, another issue that has grabbed the headlines is Burris’ final resting place.

 

Burris has commissioned for himself a grand mausoleum consisting of two columns and three tablets referring to himself as a trail blazer and listing all his political and business accomplishments, both minor and major, with room for more to be engraved. The monument, referred to “as his resume in stone” had attracted unfavourable attention from the media and earned Burris the nickname “Tombstone”. Needless to say, it was probably not the effect Burris intended.

 

While many people include burial instructions in their Will, such instructions are not binding on the estate. The estate trustee has the ultimate responsibility to make burial arrangements. For those who wish to make elaborate arrangements, they should make those instructions clear to the estate trustee and other family members, so that the estate trustee is not criticized for the expense to the estate. Additionally, we can take Burris’ lead and make our own arrangement during our lifetime. Click here to read Paul Trudelle’s paper on estate issues and dealing with the body after death.

 

Thanks for reading,

 

Diane Vieira

The Duty to Dispose of the Body

Upon the death of a person, a duty arises to bury or otherwise dispose of the remains in a decent and dignified fashion.  But who does this duty fall upon?  

It is well established in the jurisprudence for Ontario that plans for the service and burial arrangements are the responsibility of the estate trustee.  This responsibility can conflict with the wishes and expectations of the deceased and family members, particularly in a religious context.

In Saleh v. Reichert, the deceased was of the Muslim faith.  Her husband had converted to the Muslim faith for the purpose of there marriage.  There was evidence indicating that the deceased expressed her wish to be cremated upon her death.  The deceased's husband was appointed as the estate trustee without a will and intended to honour the deceased's wishes.  The deceased's father objected to the cremation on religious grounds.

The court affirmed the fundamental duty of an estate trustee is to ensure that the remains of a body be disposed of in a decent and dignified fashion.  The court held that religious law has no bearing on the case.   In Ontario, burial and cremation are both means that would meet the requirement for disposal in a decent and dignified fashion.  The deceased's father's action was dismissed.  

It is important to note that it was acknowledged that there is no property in a body.  Therefore, any instructions left by the deceased, whether in a Will or otherwise are only precatory and are not binding on the estate trustee.

Rick Bickhram

Probate Issues and Requirements - Hull on Estates #89

Listen to Probate Issues and Requirements

In this week's episode of Hull on Estates, David Smith and Allan Socken discuss probate issues, including the need for probate, when its avoidance is possible, and new developments relating to probate matters.

 

Probate Issues and Requirements - Hull on Estates Podcast #89

Posted on December 11th, 2007 by Hull & Hull LLP

 

David Smith:  Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates.  You’re listening to our next episode in our continuing podcast series.

 

Welcome to Hull on Estates, a series of podcasts for the Canadian legal community dealing with issues and insights surrounding estate planning in Canada.   Hosted by the lawyers of Hull & Hull, the podcast will touch on some key considerations when planning estates and Wills.  Now, here are today’s hosts.

 

David Smith:  Good morning.  Today Allan Socken and I are speaking about probate issues.  Good morning Allan.

 

Allan Socken:  Good morning Dave.

 

David Smith:  Allan, we thought what we would do in terms of our discussion today is talk about probate generally and when probate is required in the province of Ontario.  Now, Allan, am I correct in thinking that probate is now a somewhat dated term?

 

Allan Socken:  Yes, that is correct, David.  Currently the term that is used when probating a Will is referred to as a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will, or the case when a person dies without a Will or intestate, someone can apply for what is known as a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee without a Will.

 

David Smith:  Oh, so that’s interesting.  So, you know, quite a different terminology.  But I suppose in a sense it’s more lay friendly in the sense that it’s more evident exactly what we’re talking about.  I think the term “probate” maybe had confused the public or created this impression that there was something arcane or overly legally technical about a process which simply consists of proving the validity of the last Will, right?

 

Allan Socken:  Correct.

 

David Smith:  And Allan, why do we need probate?  And let’s refer to it as probate just because it’s easier in terms of using less words.  But why do we need probate typically in an estate?

 

Allan Socken:  Typically probate is required because it enables the estate trustee, which was previously known as an executor, to administer the assets and liabilities of the estate as well as the fact it gives some comfort in showing that even if the Will subsequently is determined not to be the last Will and testament of the deceased, any administration of the estate that has taken place until a subsequent Will is shown to be valid, leaves the executor without any liabilities and the administration that has occurred to date is fine.

 

David Smith:  Right, and that’s an important point, isn’t it, Allan?  I mean, if we’re, as lawyers, advising executors, we want to make sure first of all that if they come in with what they say is the last Will, we want to be sure that it is the last Will, because if it isn’t the last Will, it’s of no validity.  And the Court’s seal of approval, which is what a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee is, essentially tells the world that this executor has the authority to act under that Will.  So I completely agree with that in terms of the kind of advice that we want to render to an executor.  If we’re thinking about who demands probate, who are we talking about here, Allan, in terms of we think about estate assets.  Say we’ve got a house, some bank accounts, an investment portfolio, a safety deposit box, that all belong to the deceased.  Can we ever access those without a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with a Will, or is it typically going to be required?

 

Allan Socken:  Well there are certain circumstances in which a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee with or without a Will is actually not required.  For example, property that is registered under the Registry Act does not require probate, as it was known previously.  In addition, insurance policies, RRSPs, RIFs, all usually don’t require probate as well.

 

David Smith:  Well let’s talk briefly about that point.  I guess when we’re talking about those last three items you mentioned: insurance policies, RIFs, RRSPs, typically the deceased is going to designate a beneficiary of those assets other than the estate, correct?

 

Allan Socken:  Correct.

 

David Smith:  And the purpose, of course, for doing that is to avoid estate administration tax or probate fees.  And maybe this is a good segway to just briefly talk about the merits of probate fee avoidance, because if we do designate beneficiaries of certain assets that pass outside of the estate, we avoid probate tax.  Likewise, if as a testator and in planning my affairs, I jointly hold assets with someone rather than keep them in my own name, when those assets pass by right of survivorship to the survivor, they’re not going to be included in the probate fee calculation either.  So I think, Allan, over to you in terms of can you just explain to us briefly what you understand about estate administration tax, or probate fees as they’re commonly called, and how they’re charged?

 

Allan Socken:  Well, up until recently, until 1998, there was a direct tax levied in respect of probating a Will.  In a sense, it was probate tax.  However, in 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the probate fees charged by the Ontario government were unconstitutional, as they constituted a direct tax which could not be levied by regulation.  The government then proceeded to quickly amend the process and would satisfy the Supreme Court’s ruling by invoking something that is known as the Estate Administration Tax, 1998.  And in effect, what the tax says is that for $5 for each $1,000 or part thereof of the first $50,000 of the value of the estate, is taxable and $15 for each $1,000 or part thereof by which the value of the estate exceeds $50,000, is taxable.

 

David Smith:  I guess, and you know, Allan, my initial thought whenever I hear that figure is, you know, gee, that’s just not a really exorbitant tax.  I mean the lengths to which people will go in avoiding this tax, which amounts to $250 bucks on the first $50,000 of assets, sometimes seems to me to be overkill.  I mean this is not a terribly significant tax in monetary terms, is it?

 

Allan Socken:  No, because it all comes down to what is meant by the term “value of the estate”.  In a sense, value of the estate simply means the assets held under Section 32 of the Estates Act.  In effect, the actual assets held by the deceased at the time of death, excluding assets that were jointly held and other things that we’ve talked about before such as insurance policies that don’t form part of the estate.  So in effect, even though the tax sounds as though a substantial amount of the deceased’s assets will in fact be taxable, in reality, a substantial portion through careful estate planning may in fact not be taxable.

 

David Smith:  Right, that’s an excellent point, Allan.  And I think that’s something that everyone should sort of…you know, estate planning is a good thing and the idea of avoiding estate administration tax…I mean, nobody likes paying taxes for sure.  But I sometimes wonder when I think about the costs associated with litigation over questions left by a deceased respecting whether or not he intended a jointly held asset to result back into his estate or her estate, I sometimes wonder if had the deceased known what would have occurred and saw how much litigation can be created by these attempts to avoid probate tax which often can create confusion, whether in fact that testator might have said, you know what, I’m going to just pay the tax and keep things simpler.  Of course, the other way to do this is to document your intentions and, you know, that’s a subject for another podcast altogether.

 

Allan, I think just to keep things moving along and to do as much of a sort of survey of probate as we can do, let’s talk a little bit about probate as it relates to litigation.  Now I understand that there’s a specific document or appointment called a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee during Litigation.  You’re familiar with that?

 

Allan Socken:  Yes, David.

 

David Smith:  And Allan, how does that work?  How does that differ from an estate trustee with a Will or an estate trustee without a Will?

 

Allan Socken:  An estate trustee during litigation simply means that the estate trustee or executor is in charge of preserving the assets and dealing with them with the best interests of the beneficiaries in mind throughout the litigation process.  And that’s more it’s job as opposed to simply administering all the assets when the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee is given.

 

David Smith:  Right.  I think the fundamental distinction is what you touched upon which is, well, the biggest difference is an estate trustee during litigation, as you implied, cannot distribute the estate.  His or her job is to hold the assets, do everything that an estate trustee would otherwise do but not distribute the estate, so that a judge can ultimately decide who’s going to get the money.  And an estate trustee during litigation is appointed by a Court Order and is under the supervision of the Court.  And that’s a fundamental distinction from the appointment of another estate trustee.  In a sense, it is a grant of probate but it’s strictly regulated and restricted by the appointment of the Court and the fundamental distinction, as you and I both alluded to, is the fact that the estate trustee during litigation simply cannot distribute without an Order of the Court.  And I might point out, even if all the beneficiaries or litigants to the case agree that they can distribute, that estate trustee during litigation is still going to say to them, you know what, I was appointed by a Court Order and I’m going to need a Court Order directing me to distribute even if you all agree that I can distribute.

 

Now if…an interesting question which I’ve run into frequently is, do you need probate or an appointment of an executor to commence litigation or respond to litigation?  Have you run into that issue before, Allan?

 

Allan Socken:  I have with several of my files, actually, to date.  And that’s a very interesting question, simply because from my understanding, is when commencing litigation, initially an executor or estate trustee is not required.

 

David Smith:  What’s the applicable rule, Allan?

 

Allan Socken:  The applicable rule is Rule 9.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure which states “where a proceeding is commenced by or against a person as executor or administrator before a grant of probate or administration has been commenced and the person subsequently receives a grant of probate or administration, the proceeding shall be deemed to have been properly constituted from its commencement”.

 

David Smith:  Right, and you know, that’s important, Allan, because you can often have cases where litigation is necessary.  Where, for instance, an estate needs to commence a claim to comply with the limitation period or what have you.  And it may be that the litigation has to be commenced before the grant of probate occurs.  And so what the lawyer in that situation should do is issue the proceeding naming simply the estate of, you know, John Doe, as the plaintiff and then later on, he can correct it in terms of naming the appointed estate trustee once probate is granted.  So, you know, that’s a good point as well.

 

Allan, I’ve really enjoyed this discussion.  It was good to touch upon these various issues and certainly I look forward to podcasting with you in the future.  And I think what we can leave this podcast with is a better understanding, hopefully, of the situations in which probate is required.

 

Allan Socken:  Thank you very much, David.  I also enjoyed podcasting with you.

 

David Smith:  Thanks Allan.  Take care.

 

Allan Socken:  You too.  Bye-bye.

 

This has been Hull on Estates with the lawyers of Hull & Hull.  The podcast you have been listening to has been provided as an information service.  It is a summary of current legal issues in estates and estate planning.  It is not legal advice and you are reminded to always talk with a legal professional regarding your specific circumstances.

 

To listen to other podcasts, or to leave a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullandhull.com.

 

Our theme music is Upper Structure by DJ AKid  and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

 

/mem

Taking Charge of Estate Assets

In Monday's blog, I noted the increasing prevalence of new on-line businesses serving to assist estate trustees with the location of estate assets.  Of course, locating the asset is just the first step.  The estate trustee has to then manage the asset.  In most instances this involves liquidating the asset or distributing it in specie to the beneficiaries depending on the testator's intention.

Shares held by a deceased in a private company present a particular challenge to an estate trustee.  Should they be sold or should the estate trustee participate in the business as a going concern?.  This quandry, if the will gives no guidance, is compounded when the deceased holds the majority of shares and leaves a controlling interest in such a corporation.

While not always a simple question to answer, in such circumstances it seems self-evident (and just makes good business sense) for the estate trustee to be a director of the company. In such capacity, the executor is positioned to watch over the management of the business and protect this asset of the estate.  The issue was addressed in an oft-quoted excerpt from Lucking’s Will Trusts (Re) (1967) All E.R. 726, where the Court states:

“Now what steps, if any, does a reasonably prudent man who finds himself a majority shareholder in a private company take with regard to the management of the company’s affairs? He does not, I think, content himself with such information as to the management of the company’s affairs as he is entitled to as a shareholder, but ensures that he is represented on the board.”

Have a great day,

David 

 

 

The Case Against Mediating Early

I recently attended a client meeting where the issue of mediation was hotly debated. My client expressed reluctance in participating in a process with a party that my client regarded as intransigent and obstinate. My client also thought that proposing mediation would suggest to the other side that our case was weak and we were looking for a way out. After persuading my client that mediation was at least worth considering, a more substantive debate arose as to when to mediate. This debate deserves some comment.

In many ways, mediation is all "the rage" and early mediation is especially championed in the estate setting. In general, society is reluctant to see family members fight over what is perceived as a windfall. The courts reflect and promote this view. My colleagues and I have all blogged on the merits of mediation and I won't repeat them here. But parties can mediate too early. Often parties attend mediation without knowing the full extent of the estate assets or merely having a vague idea. Liquid assets might be readily ascertainable, but have all the liquid assets been uncovered i.e. have proper inquiries been made? Assets such as art, vintage cars, or family antiques are harder to evaluate and may require a professional appraisal, all of which takes time.

Moreover, the parties have often not exchanged relevant documents before attending mediation, something which they would be required to do if mediation took place at a later stage. Exchanging relevant documents will help a party better understand the risks they face in pursuing litigation, the weakness of their case, and the strength of their opponent's case (and vice versa). Forewarned is forearmed.

Back to my client meeting where it was decided that it was too early to mediate. An allegation had been made that an estate trustee had stolen money from the estate. However, no one was quite sure how much was taken and whether the estate trustee acted alone or in concert with an investment advisor. Some sort of accounting was required, supported by back-up documentation before mediation could take place and ultimately be effective. A court order might even have to be obtained to get at the necessary information. Mediation would happen, but at the right time with the right information. It is imperative that a party know their case so that they know when to mediate and how best to settle.

Justin de Vries