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

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

Listen to Offers to Settle in the Context of a Will Challenge

This week on Hull on Estates, Craig Vander Zee and Bianca La Neve talk about offers to settle in the context of a will challenge. They explain the difference between a will challenge and civil litigation and discuss several examples of will challenge cases.

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

Offers to Settle in the Context of a Will Challenge – Hull on Estates Podcast #137

 

Posted on November 18^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

 

Bianca La Neve:  Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates.  You’re listening to episode number 137 on Tuesday, November 18, 2008.

 

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.

 

Bianca La Neve:  Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates.  I’m Bianca La Neve.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  And I’m Craig Vander Zee.  And today I think, Bianca, we were going to talk about Offers to Settle in the context of a Will challenge.  But first of all, how are you?

 

Bianca La Neve:  I’m great, how are you?

 

Craig Vander Zee:  Not too bad, did you have a nice weekend?

 

Bianca La Neve:  I did, we celebrated our 5 year anniversary this past weekend.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  Congratulations, but there’s many more to go.

 

Bianca La Neve:  Yes, that’s what everyone keeps telling me.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  What is the fifth anniversary?  Is that a paper…?

 

Bianca La Neve:  I don’t know and I know I didn’t get any jewellery so…

 

Craig Vander Zee:  Well I guess that’s the tenth year anniversary, isn’t it? 

 

But back to the Offers to Settle.  The starting point for all of this is to recognize that Will challenges, by their nature and the function of the Court with a Will challenge, is different than in civil litigation.  In civil litigation, it’s maybe A Co. against, A company that is against B company, there’s a winner, there’s a loser, the Court determines and then you have cost consequences that follow.  And in the context of having made Offers to Settle, those cost consequences that may follow an award usually may be affected by the Offers, depending on if the Offers are more favourable than what the result was achieved at trial.

 

In the Will context, of course, it is the Court that is granting the validity of the Will.  And in that case, as the Will, you know, is applicable to the world at large, or in rem as it is, the Court does have a function here.  Having said all of that, there is a case in Ulinick that is very often quoted that considered this very issue.

 

Bianca La Neve:  For background purposes, the facts of the case are as follows:  the deceased had executed a Will in approximately 1979 and at the time, the deceased had been in and out of hospital and had actually undergone major surgery.  One of the deceased’s children ultimately challenged the Will, asserting lack of capacity and undue influence by his sibling, who was the sole beneficiary of the deceased’s estate.  There were two competing opinions from medical experts as to the testator’s capacity during the time of the Will, but ultimately Justice Sheard dismissed the Will challenge.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  And in that regard, or perhaps more specifically, Justice Sheard found that with respect to the lack of testamentary capacity, that that allegation had been justified, that is, that it was reasonable to make in the circumstances because there was actually two expert neurologists who gave competing evidence at the trial.  And as such, he found on that issue while ultimately he dismissed that issue, he found that it was justifiable to bring it up.  And on that issue, he then found with respect to costs that the unsuccessful party shouldn’t have to pay the costs of the successful party.  It’s interesting to note, though, that with respect to the assertion of undue influence, that there wasn’t any justification according to Justice Sheard for bringing that allegation.  So with respect to that allegation, Justice Sheard found that whatever the cost of the proceedings were that could be reasonably demonstrated to have resulted from that allegation, were going to be on the shoulders of the unsuccessful litigant here.  And that is interesting because it wasn’t a case where Justice Sheard found that costs are payable out of the estate regardless of success, and considered even the separate allegations in terms of warding off the requirement to pay costs was going to be dealt with.  On the issue of Offers to Settle, though, Justice Sheard found that the offer made on the eve of trial didn’t factor into his consideration on costs.  And so in that respect, actually, His Honour found that the Offer to Settle didn’t have effect.

 

Bianca La Neve:  But Craig, other cases in Will Challenges have considered Offers to Settle.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  And that’s right.  And perhaps before touching on some of those cases, and we’ll probably just mention them by name given the time today, but I think it is helpful to consider the traditional approach to costs and the modern approach to costs when it comes to awards in Will challenges because it does seem to signify a change in the way at least the Court intends to look at how costs are going to be applied.

 

Bianca La Neve:  For many, many years, in most Will challenge cases, the Courts would order all or most of the costs of the parties to be paid out of the estate.  Not only was the Court disinclined to require the unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the successful party, it would also direct that the unsuccessful party be partially or even wholly indemnified by the estate.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  Well, and that meant that the traditional approach to the award of costs in a Will challenge really was a departure from the usual rule in civil litigation, which is to award costs following the event.  But while I completely agree with your comment, Bianca, that in many, many cases, for many, many years, it seemed that there was almost an impunity with respect to cost consequences in dealing with Will challenges for the unsuccessful litigant, that that’s not really what the traditional approach stood for.  And the traditional approach derived from a case called Mitchell and Garde which is a case from 1863.  And not really wanting to go through it, it really boiled down to two principles or policy reasons for an order for costs that would guide how the Courts should look at it.  And it was basically this:  that the usual rule that costs follow the event will not apply where firstly, the testator or those interested in the estate have been the cause of the litigation; and secondly, where the circumstances reasonably lead to an investigation of the Will itself. 

 

So in the first scenario, it’s where the testator has drafted a Will which would lead one, or has done it in circumstances which would lead one, to challenge it, so where the cause of the litigation is the testator or, again, those interested in the estate.  And then the second one is where there is a reasonable basis to have an investigation in respect of the document being propounded.  In those scenarios, costs will not follow the event.  But that became, over the years, interpreted by at least many judges to mean that there was impunity in bringing Will challenges.  In the modern approach, that was more spelled out in a very directed way by the Court of Appeal in its 2005 decision of McDougall Estate and Gooderham.

 

Bianca La Neve:  So in that case, the Court of Appeal found that the traditional approach had been displaced.  The modern approach to fixing costs is to carefully scrutinize the litigation, so the Will challenge, and unless the Court finds that one or more of the public policy considerations set out by Craig applies, then a Court should follow the cost rules that apply in regular civil litigation.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  And the Court went on to say, the modern approach to awarding costs at first instance, and again this is in a Will challenge, recognizes the importance of the Courts and the role that they play in ensuring that only valid Wills are executed by competent testators.  It also recognizes, though, and this is where it is set out I think expressly now, and clarified, that the need to restrict unwarranted litigation and protect estates from being depleted by litigation, is going to be front and centre.  And indeed, the Court of Appeal went on to say gone are the days when the costs of all parties are so routinely ordered payable out of the estate that people perceive there is nothing to be lost in pursuing estate litigation.  So from that perspective, the Court hasn’t said that in the appropriate circumstances, at least in my view, that an unsuccessful litigant in a Will challenge won’t get their costs or there won’t be the cost consequences that follow the event.  But if they find that the public policy reasons that I mentioned before or the basis I mentioned before are not fittingly applied to the situation, then civil litigation rules are going to apply.  And what that really is instructive as well is in respect of Offers to Settle because that would also mean that in the case where the public policy reasons are not affecting cost consequences and civil litigation rules apply with respect to costs consequences, that Offers should have that effect.  Offers to Settle have been, in a number of cases, considered by Courts in Will challenges.  But here it opens the door for a Rule 49 Offer to be more consistently applied because the Courts in the past have differed in their approach to Rule 49 Offers.

 

Bianca La Neve:  So Craig, you mentioned earlier we would go through some of the cases.  And in Barone Estate, without going into the facts, in the end the judge found that there was no incompatibility in applying Rule 49 and traditional non-estate cost principles to Will challenge proceedings.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  Well, that’s right and that was a 1997 case.  But then in a case the next year, the following year, Justice Haley found in Schwitzer and Pezecki that Rule 49 didn’t apply to estate proceedings.  But with respect to the applicability of 49, it really doesn’t end there.  And again, Rule 49 is the rule that specifically sets out, Rule 49.10, specifically sets out cost consequences when an Offer is made and is more favourable than the judgment that’s obtained, vis-à-vis the opposing party.  In a case called Kerner and Fiorelli which was a case back in 1990, so 8 years before Justice Haley’s decision, the Court found that Rule 49 could not be ignored.  So the case law regarding the applicability of Rule 49.10 seemed to have been unsettled.  But it seems to me that the decision in Gooderham opens the door for that applicability of Rule 49 in the appropriate circumstances.

 

Bianca La Neve:  So I think that’s a good place to wrap up today, Craig.  If any of our listeners want to leave a comment, they may e-mail us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at www.estatelaw.hullandhull.com.  Thanks.

 

Craig Vander Zee:  Thanks very much, Bianca, it’s always a pleasure.

 

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

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

Listen to  Dealing with Estate Issues That Arise Immediately Upon Death

This week on Hull on Estates, David Smith and Natalia Angelini talk about the duties an estate trustee he or she is charged with from the moment of a testator's passing. Duties include locating the will, making funeral arrangements and being responsible to see the intentions of the testator preserved.

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

Dealing with Estate Issues That Arise Immediately Upon Death - Hull on Estates Podcast #135

Posted on November 4^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Natalia Angelini: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #135 on Tuesday, November 4^th, 2008.

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: Hi and welcome to another episode of Hull on Estates. I’m David Smith.

Natalia Angelini: And I’m Natalia Angelini.

David Smith: If you want to be heard on Hull on Estates, you can participate by leaving us a comment. E-mail us at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or you can visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. Hello, Natalia.

Natalia Angelini: Hi David. How are you?

David Smith: You know I’m okay. I’ve got a bit of a cold so my voice is about an octave lower than usual, but we’ll do our best today. So today, Natalia, we thought we were going to talk about the issue of what duties an estate trustee is charged with from the minute the deceased passes away.

Natalia Angelini: Right. It’s a really interesting topic because it’s a time when I think the estate trustee has to act fairly quickly to do a number of things, and I think the first of those is locating a Will.

David Smith: That’s right and I suppose at the outset too, we should give a little plug to Paul Trudelle of our office who has given a paper.  And there’s a webcast available on the website dealing with this issue as well. We’re, in our podcast, going to try and explore in a little more detail some of the issues that Paul touched on in his discussion.  So we commend that webcast to you. So I guess, what’s the first issue that usually arises for the estate trustee?

Natalia Angelini: I think the first can definitely be finding the Will of the deceased, because the first thing the estate trustee wants to ascertain is what the deceased’s testamentary wishes were.  And so that’s definitely an important thing to look for.

David Smith: That’s right and of course, you know everybody keeps their stuff somewhere different. In some cases, it’s a safety deposit box. In other cases, it’s a filing cabinet, under the mattress. It will depend on the person.  So if the executor is charged with the responsibility to look for the Will, they’re going to look in the obvious locations, and hopefully be able to find the Will.  And of course, the lawyer plays a role, because if the lawyer is known, he or she might have a copy of the Will.

Natalia Angelini: Right, exactly, so it’s a good idea to make inquiries with the lawyer of the deceased if you know who that lawyer is, or perhaps looking through the deceased’s personal papers, you can determine who the lawyer is and contact him or her that way.

David Smith: Right and you know, if you get into a situation where there’s just no luck finding a Will, you can advertise in the Ontario Reports.  That happens on occasion, we all see lawyers do that on the odd occasion.

Natalia Angelini: Right.

David Smith: When someone says, yeah, I knew so and so had a Will but I didn’t know who drew it.

Natalia Angelini:  Um hm. So I think aside from finding the Will, and probably one of the next things that the estate trustee is going to definitely be thinking about is making funeral arrangements.

 

David Smith: That’s right. And in the cases of an unexpected death, obviously that’s going to probably be a situation where the executor’s got to take some action of their own accord. Of course, with older people and people who are contemplating their own death through illness or what-have-you, or some other really sad situation, we’re seeing more and more that people will prepay their funeral or have them organized ahead of time.  But in most instances, the estate trustee is going to have to deal with this, you know, obviously rather unpleasant task, and certainly it’s the foremost concern.

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely.  And with respect to payment of the funeral, I think it’s helpful to note that those costs are of priority payment and come out of the assets of the estate.  So if it’s not prepaid then at least the estate trustee hopefully has assets available to make that payment.

David Smith: Well that’s right and it’s probably worth just making the point at this stage too, that the government provides a death benefit of $2,500.  And really that’s there primarily to fund the cost of the funeral or to contribute towards the cost of the funeral.

Natalia Angelini: Right, that’s a good point. In dealing with the funeral, I think this is a real interesting one, especially if you’ve maybe got a dispute between family members as to how it should happen, and potentially that may even differ with what the deceased has set out in his or her Will, and you’ve got a really interesting situation about how this deceased person is going to be put to rest.

 

David Smith: Well you’re right Natalia and we’ve seen situations where it’s potentially very emotionally volatile. You can have a situation where you have religion sometimes clash with the intentions of the testator. There’s one case where, the name escapes me, but Rick Bickhram of our office recently, I think a couple of weeks ago, blogged on a case where a deceased person named her boyfriend as executor. He was charged with acting as executor and intended to cremate her remains. The family, for religious reasons, opposed that and this matter ultimately went to Court and the Court decided that it was in the authority of the executor to make that decision.

Natalia Angelini: Right, and during Paul’s talk, he went through a few cases dealing with this issue and it seems to be that the consensus of the Court is that the duty of an estate trustee includes that duty to dispose of the body and that the estate trustee really has final say.

 

David Smith: Right, and you know that really seems to be a very settled law. Unfortunately, I think you’re still going to see cases go to litigation on this in the odd instance, not because the outcome is ever really going to be in question because the law seems so settled that the estate trustee can do what he or she wants.  But I suppose if I’m a bit cynical, for settlement purposes, someone might start that litigation in the hopes of arriving at some kind of compromise. So you know, certainly that’s an issue which regrettably can result in litigation on the odd situation.   But, you know, we keep repeating the same refrain which is that the executor has that responsibility.  And it’s worth also mentioning I think, Natalia, that you can say whatever you want in your Will about how you would like your remains to be disposed of; the reality is that the executor does not have to follow those, does he or she?

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely.  He or she does not, but interestingly though, his or her duty is to dispose of the body in a manner suitable with the estate of the deceased.  So even though the estate trustee may seem to be able to do whatever he or she wants, there’s definitely going to be criticism of a trustee who just, you know, goes ahead and, for instance, has an elaborate $50,000 funeral where the deceased has a fairly modest estate.

David Smith: Right. I think generally it’s expected that the funeral will be commensurate with the size of the estate, so I think that’s a really good point.  And also, there’s just a moral duty, I think, in this situation, where you’d expect the executor to do what the testator wanted.

Natalia Angelini: Right.

David Smith: It’s probably worth doing a little segway here, while we’re on this topic. I mean, this has to do now with the issue of donation of body parts.  And, of course, there’s legislation in Ontario that deals with that, right Natalia?

Natalia Angelini: There is. It’s the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act and it’s an interesting piece of legislation that allows a person to consent to the donation of their own body, or body parts, upon death.

David Smith: That’s right. So we’ve all sort of seen the situation where the consent card is kept quite often with someone’s driver’s license and this is an important priority.  And, of course, it plays an important role in given the success of transplant surgeries and what have you, that this is obviously an important legislative prerogative that this kind of intention can be preserved, even if it’s not contained in the Will.

Natalia Angelini: Right. And a spouse or other family members can also give their consent, even if the deceased hasn’t done so during his or her lifetime. So the difference here, I think, with the ability to dispose of the body, is that the family members seem to get priority over the wishes of the estate trustee.

David Smith: Right and it’s obviously a specific situation but it’s important to know because it’s the one significant departure from the common law rule that the executor’s decisions are paramount. 

Natalia Angelini: And frankly, it makes sense to me anyway.

David Smith: Oh, absolutely. I don’t see how we can quarrel with that. So you know, harking back to our topic for the day which is the executor’s duties, again it all boils down to fiduciary duty, doesn’t it Natalia? I mean really the executor’s got to make sure that he or she does what is necessary to see the intentions of the testator preserved.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right and I think it’s important to note particularly with this issue of disposing of the body, the estate trustee has to do so in a dignified way.  And so I think that’s in keeping with fulfilling his or her fiduciary duty. 

David Smith: Good point. Okay, so I guess we should move on to a couple of more issues, just given our limited amount of time that’s left.  And we were going to touch on children and pets, in that order. So let’s talk about children briefly speaking. It’s possible in your Will, isn’t it, to speak to guardianship?

Natalia Angelini: That’s right. Under the Children’s Law Reform Act, you can appoint someone to have custody of your child upon your death, and I think sometimes people do this, and they put this provision in their Will and I’m not sure that they’re always aware that this has some limited value.

David Smith: That’s right. The appointment is valid for 90 days but, of course, it’s important to note that if anybody else is entitled to custody and is not named in the Will, that that person obviously has a right to exercise custody and it might be pointed out that an application for custody can be commenced within that 90 day period.  And so, to some extent the wishes of the guardian, with respect to their children in their Will is somewhat precatory, isn’t it, in that it’s subject to other considerations.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right, but I think it may give some assistance to the family and to the children, really, so they know I guess who they’re going to be spending time with, at least in the short-term.

David Smith: True. And I guess the important point too is, in all likelihood, the custodial parent in their Will will say that if they die, in all likelihood, they’re going to appoint the other parent as the guardian of the children. I suppose you could have a situation where there are two parents, where one parent dies and provides in his or her Will that the guardian for the children is someone other than the other parent.  And obviously in that situation, the other parent is going to have something to say about that. 

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely, I’ve seen that type of case and I think, unsurprisingly, the other parent proceeded with an application in the Family Court for custody and that issue was resolved that way.

David Smith: Now the last point is in keeping with our concern about issues arising immediately upon death, of course, lots of people have pets.  And lots of Wills provide for pets as beneficiaries.  And pets need to be fed and watered, so obviously the executor’s got to look after that.

Natalia Angelini: That’s right and like you said, that’s definitely got to happen at the get go because we don’t want pets to be neglected.  And they’re usually, especially if they’re in a Will, very near and dear to the deceased’s heart.  So it’s important to make those arrangements.

David Smith: Right. And that’s going to also require the executor to act quickly as you pointed out. So good point as well, and Paul, in his paper, talks about crops and perishables. If you’ve got a business that’s running fresh produce for instance, and the business owner dies, any other perishable products, obviously it’s important to keep the electricity on, to keep things refrigerated and all of those sort of important things that have to do with ensuring that any inventory of the estate does not go to waste, because ultimately, the executor is going to be accountable to the beneficiaries, right, for what happens.

Natalia Angelini: Exactly. And I think, I guess the one thing to remember is, it’s so important for the estate trustee, I suppose to know, as far in advance as possible, whether he or she is a trustee and what the assets of the estate are and what the circumstances are so they can do their best to act as quickly as possible.

David Smith: Absolutely. That’s the biggest part of good estate planning, isn’t it? And it makes the job so much easier. And we should point out, too, that if it’s just an insurmountable job for the executor to take on, maybe you renounce.

Natalia Angelini: Right, or get a, if the estate assets can justify it, get a trust company in place or instead.

David Smith: Especially if there’s a business there, yeah, so I think that’s an important point to leave our listeners with is, you know, if you’re named as executor, you’re not duty bound to take on the job at all costs. If it’s not a realistic possibility for you to carry on the task, consider renouncing.

Natalia Angelini: Absolutely. Good point, David. So, I think that brings us to the end of this week’s discussion. Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, David.

David Smith: It was a pleasure, Natalia. I really look forward to podcasting with you again soon.

Natalia Angelini: And we look forward to hearing from our listeners. You can send us an e-mail at hull.lawyers@gmail.com. Be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. where you’ll find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law. We hope that you enjoyed the show. I’m Natalia Angelini.

David Smith: I’m David Smith. Until next week, so long.

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

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

You may remember that my colleague, Chris Graham, blogged on the death of the actor, Heath Ledger and the pending litigation involving his estate (Link to Chris Graham's Blog).    

It has been well reported that Ledger last made a Will in 2003, before the birth of his daughter Matilda (in 2005) and before his claim to fame.  Under the 2003 Will, Ledger left all of his possessions to his parents and sister.  He subsequently stared in several hit films which vastly increased the size of his net value.  Subsequent to his passing, the question that was considered was what would happen to Matilda, as she was not provided for in the 2003 Will?   

There had been discussion that Matilda's mother would likely commence a claim on Ledger's estate, which could have tied up the Estate in litigation for years. However, now it is widely reported that Ledger's entire estate will all go to two year old Matilda (click here for the report).  

Estate planning is like doing our taxes.  No one wants to do them, but Ledger's story teaches us an important lesson.  It reminds us of the uncertainty of death and the consequential need to ensure that our estate plans are updated to protect those that we care for.  

Rick Bickhram

 

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

 

Or, listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 6 by clicking here.

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

They pick up where they left off last week by addressing undue influence. What is undue influence and how do we prove it? Next week they will continue their discussion on the different grounds upon which a will can be challenged.

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.

 

Will Challenge Litigation Part 6 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #131

Posted on September 23, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, a series of podcasts hosted by Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag, that will provide information and insights into estate planning in Canada. From the offices of Hull Estate Mediation in Toronto, here are Ian and Suzana.

 

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi, and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening to Episode #131 of our podcast on Tuesday, September 23^rd, 2008. Hi there, Ian.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana. How are you doing today?

 

Suzana Popovic-Montag: I’m well thank you, how are you?

Ian Hull: Just terrific. We are thinking through this Will challenge process and we’re trying to hopefully take it beyond the typical Will challenge and talk about some sophisticated steps that are often involved, (a) because they’re good, they’re helpful hopefully, for people who want to get into these Will challenges, but (b) it’s helpful to know what you get yourself into. And this is part of it. We talked about in our last podcast getting a retrospective opinion. This is not uncommon, but it’s also a very expensive process. You have to pick the right expert, you have to make sure the report is clear and concise in a way that a judge is going to receive it well, because judges are people, too. They don’t want to see a 20 page report full of esoteric medical terms that nobody can follow. So there’s a strategy within the strategy of bringing that on. 

Let’s talk now about how we deal with the question of undue influence because we described in our last podcast what undue influence was, and that is coercion, and that is the arm-twisting. So, let’s talk a little bit about what do we mean by that and, more importantly, how do we prove it?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And really, the allegation of undue influence is that the testator, at the time that he or she created their Will, was not doing it on their own free volition.  And so as Ian classically describes it as this arm-twisting, the judges call it that in a lot of cases as well. And the idea there is that someone has influenced you to do something that you would not otherwise have wanted to, or at least not to that extent. So maybe yes, you did want to provide for little Johnny but not to the extent of your full estate, and to the exclusion of your daughter Betty. So that’s the kind of idea when we say undue influence.  Certainly there’s a level of influence that we all have on our family members. The question is, when is that influence undue in the sense that it could compromise your capacity to make a valid Will. 

Ian Hull: And the classic example in the case law of what is undue is, when you sit across the table from your mother and you say, if you don’t do what I say, I’m going to put you in a nursing home. That’s a graphic and obviously, hopefully, never said illustration, but in our world we do see it and we see that it’s being alleged to have been said, and that’s a classic undue influence. The thing that really we’re troubled with, with undue influence is that the nature of the claims and the allegations are typically so volatile, they’re so, some people say, mean-spirited because if you’re going to unduly influence you have probably behaved very badly.  And so one side of the case is going to say you behaved very badly and spell it out, so it looks like allegations of egregious behaviour, and the other side is going to have a complete opposite.  So just the nature of the evidence itself turns this litigation into volatile, typically aggressive, litigation in and of itself. So that’s an important strategy point that we always like to walk through our clients as saying, you go down that road of alleging undue influence, you create a new environment and sometimes a very distasteful litigation environment. So,

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And I was going to say, Ian, and it’s very hard to go back. Once you’ve done that, you’ve sort of crossed the line, it’s very hard to take that back. When you’re dealing with family members, you’re dealing with loved ones, these are really nasty allegations many times. They don’t necessarily have to be, but most of the times we see that they are. And so it becomes a he-said, she-said situation. And by virtue of the allegation itself that someone was unduly influenced, one of the biggest concerns or one of the biggest issues that we face as lawyers, is getting proof of that undue influence.

Ian Hull: Absolutely, and that’s really, so first of all, we don’t like to go down that road because you’re going to have to say some very nasty things or defend very nasty things, and you’re going to create a volatile litigation environment. But the second point is exactly what Suzana has said, and that is that we’re stuck with the legal parameters. I mean the concept of undue influence has been around for hundreds of years. We’re stuck with the legal parameters and the two points within that category are this: one is, is that to allege undue influence is a very tough case to meet. The Courts have said it is the highest of expectation to prove that there was undue influence. The second component is the source of the undue influence has to come, and I may be overstating it, but basically has to come from third party non-participant evidence.  And what do we mean by that?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well, Ian, what we are suggesting there is that when you make an allegation of undue influence, then your evidence in support of that will be viewed, if it’s directly your evidence, probably by a judge, as self-serving evidence. Well, of course you’re going to say that you saw this or that this happened or that that happened, because that helps your case. But if you want to add credence to your allegations, you’ve got to have the evidence of someone else, someone who’s not vested in the process or the result of the process, who’s going to say yes, I saw that kind of behaviour being exhibited, I saw these threats being made to the testator, I know that this is what actually happened.

Ian Hull: And a classic example to follow through with that is, we talked about the son sitting across the table from mom saying, you do what I say or I move you into an old folks’ home or a nursing home.  That threat is seen by the next-door neighbour who happens to be over at the house helping out this nice elderly individual.  And that neighbour has no vested interest, is a third party source and is someone that, what we call, corroborates the evidence. And so we remember that we’ve got very difficult expectations. The Courts, undue influence is akin to fraud. It’s like you say that, you’re basically alleging fraud.  So the Courts say there’s a very high standard on those who want to pursue that claim.  Part of that high standard is that you need corroborative evidence and in that component, the third component is Suzana, what are we getting at when we say corroborative evidence and why does that matter in estate matters?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well corroborative evidence, of course Ian, is evidence that’s going to prove additional evidence that you have, so the allegations that have been made in support of the fact that someone was unduly influenced. And one of the key things with this type of evidence, of course, is that if you are in fact, an undue influencer, you’re probably smart enough not to be doing it in front of others.  So that you don’t have these third party witnesses or individuals who overhear these threats being made, don’t see this kind of behaviour being exhibited and so it’s very difficult, we tend to find in these situations, to come up with this corroborative, this additional evidence in support of the allegation. 

Ian Hull: Absolutely. And because it’s so difficult though, it’s also a non-starter if you don’t have it in many cases. And that’s because the Courts have sat back and said, if you’re going to allege that certain things were said by someone who is now dead, you have to source that beyond your own evidence. You have to buff that up. You can’t just say that, you can’t speak for the dead so to speak.  And that is really, which is a great old common law tradition, and evidentiary expectation, that you corroborate.  When you’re going to put words in the mouth of a dead person, you have to corroborate it.

So, that’s really, I think, the core spin in terms of the evidence and in terms of the expectations of the Courts with undue influence.  But the last point I was going to say in terms of the process here, and these are, as we talk about these legal issues and we’re going to move on to some of the other ones briefly after this, is that really, typically, an estate challenge, a Will challenge, you’re going to look to lack of testamentary capacity and you’re going to look to undue influence. And at the outset, almost always you’re going to allege both or both are going to be alleged against you. But the trick is, and the strategy is, is when do you let go? And do you let go, I mean we talked about it for cost consequences, but with undue influence, you want to, I tell our clients, we have to monitor that issue on a regular, regular basis.  Because there’s always the chance if you let go, you’re not going to get stung like a bee by having alleged it. Because it’s not such a terrible thing to suggest because it’s one of the four or five cornerstone issues in a Will challenge.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And I guess, Ian, just in terms of winding up, just one thing I think we should make mention of the fact is that even though there are these traditional five grounds of challenging a Will, not all five have to be present in every case.  And in most cases they’re not.  And you may just have a Will challenge based simply on undue influence or simply on lack of testamentary capacity or a Will not having been properly executed. So these are not things that have to be found altogether, they’re mutually exclusive.  They can, however, be joined in a claim for a challenge to a Will.

Ian Hull: So if we’re ready, from a strategy standpoint, we want to maybe put one, two, three or four out on the table, but also be mindful of the fact that, while you may have a right to investigate those circumstances, you may not want to hang on to that allegation forever. 

So, I think from that standpoint, before we cover off one of the last issues, and that is the question of undue, I mean the lack of due execution and then some of the corporate machinations in a corporate context of how these Will challenges go, I just want to say that, my last comment is on the question of fraud.  As we said before, it really is not worthy of a ton of discussion. It’s just not typically alleged.  But in our next podcast, we’ll start with that issue just because of the one rare occasion when it’s alleged, it can be dealt with on a very, fairly pinpointed and sophisticated basis which we’re going to talk a little bit about in our next podcast, and that’s when we have forged Wills. So thank you very much, Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Thanks to you, too, Ian. And to all of you who are listening and watching us by video podcast, a quick reminder that if you have any comments and you’d like to share them with us, we’d certainly appreciate them. Feel free to call us at 206-457-1985.

 

Ian Hull: And of course, e-mail at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Thanks, Ian.

You’ve been listening to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning with Ian Hull and Suzana Popovic-Montag. 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 Hull On podcasts, or to leave any questions or comments, please visit our website at hullestatemediation.com.

 

/mem

 

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

Listen to The Question of Compensation and Complaints.

This week on Hull on Estates and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana discuss the question of compensation and complaints regarding compensation.

Comments? Send us an email at hullandhull@gmail.com, call us on the comment line at 206-457-1985, or leave us a comment on the Hull on Estate and Succession Planning blog.