Influence - Toronto Estate Law Blog http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/articles/blog-posts-hull-on-estates/ en-us Copyright 2008 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:00:00 -0500 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:15:06 -0500 http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.34 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Unduly Influenced Not to Make a Will? 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

 

]]> http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/10/articles/topics/estate-trust/unduly-influenced-not-to-make-a-will/ http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/10/articles/topics/estate-trust/unduly-influenced-not-to-make-a-will/ BickhramChallengeEstate & TrustInfluenceLLPRickTrustUndueestatehullwill Tue, 21 Oct 2008 05:00:00 -0500 nonley@hullandhull.com (Hull & Hull LLP) Dependency and Undue Influence Mom dies, leaving a will that divides her estate among her three sons. The only trouble is that before she died, Mom gave the farm to one of her sons. Accordingly, the other two sons receive nothing upon Mom’s death. 

This fact situation was recently considered by Jenkins J. in Bale v. Bale.

The two disappointed sons were not actively involved in Mom's care. The other son lived with Mom, and helped her extensively. The court found that Mom relied on the one son for her care and well being.

The lawyer on the transfer said that Mom, who was 93, understood the transaction and what she was signing. A doctor confirmed her capacity.

Notwithstanding this capacity, the judge concluded that the relationship between Mom and son was one of dependency. The presumption of undue influence was triggered. Although the court found that Mom had great affection for her one son, this was not sufficient to validate the transfer of the property to him. The court concluded that the transfer of the farm was influenced by Mom’s dependence on the one son. The transfer was set aside.

When considering the value of an estate, one should consider any transfers by the deceased prior to his or her death; particularly where any such transfer might have resulted from undue influence due to a dependency.

Thank you for reading

Paul Trudelle

]]> http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/04/articles/topics/estate-trust/dependency-and-undue-influence/ http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/04/articles/topics/estate-trust/dependency-and-undue-influence/ Estate & TrustInfluenceLitigationUnduebaleestategifthullpaultrudelle Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:58:42 -0500 nonley@hullandhull.com (Hull & Hull LLP) Denying a Benefit = Protecting the Client While researching yesterday's blog on the Brooke Astor estate, I stumbled upon a number of legal blogs on the Astor guardianship dispute.  Several of these including this one noted that the lawyer for Astor had come under scrutiny during the guardianship dispute.  The issue was whether the lawyer himself played a role in unduly influencing Astor to make a Will thereby benefitting her son's charitable foundation.  Such enquiry is, of course, of grave concern and considerably different than that faced by a lawyer who makes a Will in circumstances where there is some question as to whether the testator is capable to make a Will.  Certainly, in Ontario, this latter issue has been exhaustively considered by the Court of Appeal in Bennett v. Hall.  Put simply, if a lawyer is asked to make a Will (and has been retained for that purpose) but has questions as to the capacity of the testator, it is not inappropriate to make the Will and extensively document his file with notes so that the validity of the Will, if challenged, can be adjudicated by the Court.  But what if the lawyer draws a Will under which he or she receives a benefit?  A New York Probate lawyer, Philip M. Bernstein notes in his blog that Astor's lawyer had "been named as beneficiary on several occasions and has inherited such valuable goodies as Manhatten apartments and valuable works of art including at least one Renoir and a Diego Rivera drawing as well as substantial sums of cash." While this example is clearly at the extreme end of the spectrum, trusts and estates practitioners may occasionally encounter clients who wish to name them as a beneficiary of their estate.  To accept a retainer in such circumstances is to invite allegations of suspicious circumstances and a presumption of undue influence which could cause the entire Will to be set aside.  Surely counsel of caution is to decline a retainer anytime a client wishes to confer a benefit in a Will upon the drafting solicitor, regardless of the circumstances.

Enjoy the weekend,

David

 

]]> http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2007/08/articles/blog-posts-hull-on-estates/denying-a-benefit-protecting-the-client/ http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2007/08/articles/blog-posts-hull-on-estates/denying-a-benefit-protecting-the-client/ Archived BLOG POSTS - Hull on EstatesInfluenceUnduedraftingwill Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:00:00 -0500 nonley@hullandhull.com (Hull & Hull LLP)