The Capital Account - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning #117

Listen to The Capital Account

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana talk about taking capital out of an account and what to consider along the way.

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.

The Capital Account - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning Podcast #117

Posted on June 17, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hi, and welcome to Hull on Estate and Succession Planning. You’re listening to Episode #117 of our podcast on Tuesday, June 17th, 2008.

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, Ontario, Canada, here are Ian and Suzana.

Ian Hull:    Hi, Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:   Hi there, Ian. How are you today?

Ian Hull: Well, I’m a lot better than you. This is the joys of podcasting, and one day we may go to video podcasting but we aren’t there, we are in audio.  And so, those who are listening don’t get the pleasure of seeing a big cast on your right arm, as Suzana tried to leap from giant buildings and be Superwoman, and broke her arm. So if I get out of line, you’ll hear a chunk against my head, and we’ll have some interesting podcast. So, good to be back and always good to see you. Hope you had a busy but fruitful week last week.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: A little bit slower than I’d like, but certainly trying to limp along. Thanks, Ian, for that. I did just want to start by mentioning we did get a little bit of feedback on our last podcast and I just wanted to clarify that when we were talking about capital disbursements, we were talking about the kinds of entries that are typically in those listings. And I did mention that we would be looking for whether or not there are any entries for the purchase of investments.  And someone correctly pointed out that they ought not to be listed in there and that’s absolutely right. What I had meant to say and didn’t get across quite properly, was the fact that those are things that we look for when we’re trying to identify possible problems with the accounts.  And even though they may show up in a listing on capital disbursements, they have to be backed out later on any accounts as well. So thank you for having mentioned that and for that clarification.

Ian Hull: That’s a great point and you know, the thing about accounts in this world, this strange world of estate accounting, is that to simplify down to basic terms, there are really categories that these accounts are in.  And one of the separated categories as you say, is the investment account. So it is much easier to follow it through. And we’ve talked about the two aspects of any financial accounting and that is, one is, you’ll have capital, you’ll have the core asset and then you have essentially income that gets generated, or revenue as we call it in the estate world more often than not. And we spoke about last week the capital disbursements as you say, and why don’t we spend a few more minutes going through some of this concept of taking capital out. Taking a core asset, for example, a GIC, on death goes into the accounts at $112,000 because that’s what the deceased had on the date of death, and that comes into the estate in the form of capital. And let’s continue to work through how that $112,000 comes out, and how it is shown in the estate accounting world.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And then what’ll happen is, once that money is taken out, whether in that denomination or in another, the executor will, depending on the terms of the Will and how liquid the estate needs to be relative to the timing, will decide whether or not to invest that account or that amount into some other form of investments.

Ian Hull: Right, because in some cases, say there’s $112,000 and say there’s a $12,000 gift to a favourite charity of the deceased, and you want to pay that quickly for example, you would take that and you could pay some of that GIC out, put it all into the estate account and then pay some of it out quickly to the charity to satisfy that particular gift.  But leave the rest in for the other, depending on the terms of the Will. So, when we go through these accounts with our fine-tooth comb, and we’re looking for problems that may exist or not exist, is that one of the things we also look for are the professionals.  And how are the professional’s fees being dealt with in the accounts themselves.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And as part of that, we’re looking for, for instance, for the legal accounts or the accountant’s bills and that, and how they’re reflected as capital disbursements presumably at first instance.  And then the question is, are those proper expenses of the estate, are they properly reflected and particularly in a situation where the executor is also the lawyer for the estate, the question as to whether or not there’s a possible sort of double-dipping in terms of compensation at the end of the day.

Ian Hull: And one of the things that I often will say to my clients is “just ask for copies of the professional’s accounts”. So there’s a bill in there and the capital disbursements that’s been paid to XYZ Corporation, an accounting firm, then to get a handle on what work they did or didn’t do, you know, say you don’t want to pay the $5,200 or the $2,300 or the whatever amount it is, look behind it because sometimes that will tell you whether or not (a) it’s appropriate and (b) whether or not the administration of the whole estate may come into question. Because if it was a simple step such as filing a T3 return, and you’re being charged $10,000 for it, you may want to ask some other questions and start to wonder whether or not the professional work is being done at a reasonable fee basis. 

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And the other thing that normally people will look for is that the work that’s being done by a lawyer who is an executor of the estate, that there is legal work and that that’s distinguished from executor’s work.  Because the understanding, of course, according to the case law, is that you shouldn’t be compensated for accounting work or for other executor’s work at your legal rates.  And so when it comes to determining the proper amount of compensation at the end of the day, looking at the detailed docket entries, looking at the detailed accounts, allows people to make that determination in terms of the appropriate breakdown between executor’s compensation and legal fees.

Ian Hull: And just following through on that legal fees, the delineation is sometimes hard. It’s a bit blurred. I usually use the example of an executor, as a lawyer or as an accountant, for example, and they charge their hourly rate to go down to the bank and set up the estate bank account.  That is improper. The Courts will typically say that setting up a bank account, for example, is a job of an executor and you should be paid out of your compensation as opposed to at the hourly rate. Now having said that, we have to remember that under the Trustee Act and there’s a clear provision that says that you can contract out of the general rules. You could actually put in your Will that you want your executor to charge at the hourly rate. There’s a specific provision in the Trustee Act, s. 61(5) that says that if you want, you can change those terms, so to speak.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Another illustration of a situation where you’d look in more detail is when you’ve got legal accounts for the sale of real property.  And you’ll want to review, in those circumstances, the statement of adjustments and the solicitor’s trust account, just to make sure that there is again, no duplication of charges.

Ian Hull: So, Suzana, one of the things that I sometimes get bogged down on are entries regarding payments of loans and promissory notes.  In particular, where they are made to persons who are not at arm’s length to the deceased. When I say not at arm’s length, I mean to payments and loans that have been created before death with say, a brother of the deceased or with a spouse, or a common-law spouse, that may raise your eyebrows. What’s the best way to deal with that scenario?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: I’ll typically tell executors or trustees that I’m advising, Ian, that they should make sure that they’ve got sufficient back-up, just like the payment of any debt. You want to make sure that it is a legitimate expense of the estate and that at the end of the day, you have the voucher to substantiate the payment.  And particularly in this situation where you’re suggesting someone not at arm’s length, because there is already a supposition that perhaps it’s not a legitimate expense.  And so you want to make sure that there is a promissory note or there is some form of evidential proof of the fact that there was amount owing and that it was properly paid by the executor or the trustee.

Ian Hull: What about unusual entries? What do we do with those? And maybe you can talk a little bit about what unusual entries are and how we deal with them.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: I think sort of as a one-off when you’re looking at accounts and you see that there’s perhaps a continuing payment of rent or mortgage on a piece of real estate, and then the question is, how long should those payments be made.  If it is, for instance, the real estate, should the home have been sold quicker or the cottage have been sold faster so as to have stopped the mortgage payments or the rental requirements or something to that effect. 

Ian Hull: And the second unusual payment that I think about is when you have improvements to the capital property that is being directly given to a beneficiary, for example, the family cottage.  Say it’s going to one of the beneficiaries, but you start using estate expenses to pay for those. And I think those two illustrations are perfect examples of where an executor really needs to step in and communicate with the beneficiaries. Because it may be that the beneficiaries say, “yes, we do actually want the cottage roof fixed right away because although it’s going to Johnny, Johnny’s not 100% sure that he wants it, and we’re talking amongst the family as to whether or not Betty wants to buy it instead; and so we need to preserve the cottage, we don’t want water leaking through the roof, so, sure, take it out of the estate”. 

But the other approach might be, geez, Betty says, “what are you spending my money, or $50 of my money on fixing the roof?” So, that kind of problem, what happens is, if an executor moves forward in what I would describe as a non-communicative, and sometimes even an arrogant way on these issues, then you create the potential problem of a beneficiary stepping in and being questioning, but also being frustrated with your conduct as an executor. So this is an easy illustration of where it sure pays off to talk early and talk often with your beneficiaries.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s a great illustration, Ian, because we know just from our own experience that, especially a cottage property, there’s a lot of situations where there’s emotional undercurrents lying attached to that property. And when one child or one beneficiary is favoured and others aren’t, it can be a real flashpoint.  And then, as you say, to suggest that someone else’s money is being used to take care of an asset that’s going to someone else, it could be a real problem.

Ian Hull: Well that’s great. I think what we’ll do is we’ll wrap up on that point. We started this podcast talking about the investment account and clarifying from the input we got from our listener.  And again, we didn’t actually at the outset make it clear that we have call-ins, but we’re going to give you that detail right now, quickly.  And also, next podcast I think we’ll turn to the whole question of the investment account, because the capitals account is one, capital disbursements, money coming out is one topic that we’ve sort of covered in pretty good detail.  But in the next topic, I think we’ll want to work through is this separate category of the investment account and how it’s set out in estate accounting. But I just remind everyone, feel free to call in at 206-457-1985.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And in case you didn’t catch that, you can find that number in our show notes along with our e-mail address which is hullandhull@gmail.com, or of course, you can feel free to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com. Thanks very much, Ian.

Ian Hull: Thanks, Suzana.

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 a question or comment, please visit our website at www.hullestatemediation.com.

Our theme music is UpTempo14 by Gary and is courtesy of the Podsafe Music Network.

/mem

Demand Promissory Notes and the Estate - Hull on Estates Podcast #68

Listen to "Demand Promissory Notes and the Estate"

Read the transcribed version of "Demand Promissory Notes and the Estate"

Craig and Bianca discuss demand promissory notes and the recent decision of Hare v. Hare [2007] 83. O.R. (3d) 766. The Hare decision specifically deals with the limitation periods applicable to the enforcement of a demand promissory note.

Craig and Bianca also discuss demand promissory notes in the estate context, and the considerations parents should take into account when making demand loans to children.

Click "Continue Reading" for the transcribed version of this podcast.

Demand Promissory Notes and the Estate - Hull on Estates Podcast #68

Posted on July 17th, 2007 by Hull & Hull LLP

Bianca Le Neve: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #68 of our podcast on Tuesday, July 17th, 2007.

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 Craig.

Craig Vander Zee: How are you today, Bianca?

Bianca La Neve: Great, how are you?

Craig Vander Zee: Good, but I’m a little bit sad because I understand today is the last podcast that you and I will be doing as a partnership…

Bianca La Neve: That’s right.

Craig Vander Zee: …for some time now.  And so I just wanted to say at the beginning of the podcast that I’ve really enjoyed doing these podcasts with you.

Bianca La Neve: Thank you, likewise. So today Craig, we’re going to speak about Demand Promissory Notes.

Craig Vander Zee: Well, we’re going to speak about them in the context of the estate as well.  And first of all, when you’re dealing with demand loans, it’s probably not a bad idea to touch on some other concepts first. And really what I mean by that is, when an adult child receives money from a parent during a parent’s lifetime, it’s key to find out the intentions of both the parent and the child and clearly define them. And by way of example, a child may consider a payment from a parent as a gift without conditions attached to it.  The parent, on the other hand, may not quite, probably not surprisingly and may consider it either to be a gift, a loan to be repaid, or an advance on an inheritance to be taken into account in the division of the parents’ estate. So that by canvassing the intentions of the parties up front, and most specifically, the parent, misunderstandings can be avoided. 

But today’s topic, you’re quite right, we’re going to focus in on Demand Promissory Notes.  So the assumption is today that the parent intends that the loan, that is the advance, be a loan and that the loan is evidenced by way of a Demand Promissory Note.  And this is actually a common way of evidencing, or it has been in the past, a loan from a parent to a child. 

What is perhaps the most significant thing about Demand Promissory Notes, though, Bianca is that the ability to enforce them does not last forever.  And quite often, a parent might believe that upon making a Demand Promissory Note, if interest payments have been started but perhaps stopped, or if they’re not enforcing for a couple of years, that they have the ability to do so pretty much whenever they want.  And that’s just simply wrong. Historically, what that meant Bianca, a Demand Loan has been held to mature as soon as it is delivered.  And in the old regime, that is, the limitations, the old Limitations Act, the one applicable prior to 2004, if an action was not commenced in respect of a Demand Loan within six years, it was barred. Under the new Act, however, which came into effect January 1, 2004, the limitation period was reduced to two years. The key thing, and I know that I’m, I guess, I’m hogging the mike on this one, the key thing with this is that, given the language in the new Act, it was arguable to interpretation as to whether the law had actually changed with respect to the limitation periods of Promissory Notes, such that it was the refusal to repay the Demand Loan that triggered the limitation period, and not simply the non-payment of it.  And that was an important distinction which was dealt with by Ontario’s Court of Appeal in December 2006 in the Hare and Hare decision. And I think that our listeners are probably tired of my voice, so perhaps you could explain what the background was or the facts were in that case.

Bianca La Neve: Well Craig in the case, the Mom, Mary Hare or the plaintiff, had loaned her son Brian, the defendant, a sum of money in 1997.  And what they did to evidence that loan was they executed a Promissory Note dated February 10, 1997 in which the son Brian promised to pay his Mom on demand the sum of $150,000.00 dollars. And the Note indicated that the loan was payable on demand with interest, calculated at the rate of prime plus one percent per year. Now the son Brian last made an interest payment on this Note on October 26, 1998.  So no payment in respect of the Note, either in principal or interest, was made since October, 1998. The Mom subsequently became incapable and her Power of Attorney made a demand for payment on behalf of the Mom in 2004. Brian, the son, did not make any payment.  Accordingly, in February of 2005, the Mom’s Power of Attorney commenced an action for repayment of all monies due on the Note. 

Craig Vander Zee: It’s a pretty technical set of facts when we’re dealing with all the dates.  But the long and the short of it is, is that the last payment on the Demand Promissory Note was back in October of 1998.  And the question was, the fact that the Statement of Claim was issued more than six years past that date.  Was that enough to have it statute barred? And what was interesting, one of the interesting aspects of this case is that it was decided by way of a summary judgment.  And the defendant, that’s the son, moved under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, for summary judgment. And the summary judgment was on the limitation issue itself.  Bianca, what’s an interesting aside is that a number of weeks ago, I did a short blog on the Hare and Hare case.  And on the same day that the blog was displayed, the lawyer for the defendant in this case actually blogged me, or wrote to me, and indicated to me that one of the facts that’s not known in this case by simply reading it is that one of the son’s positions was that he had repaid most of the loan, or all of the loan, but that moving on summary judgment on that point would have difficult or problematic because of a genuine issue to be proved. 

So that’s an interesting aside.  In the end, the lower court judge, the motion court judge granted the summary judgment, indicating that while the plaintiff’s argument, the mother’s argument, was attractive, it simply didn’t hold water when matched up against the legal interpretation of the Limitations Act. And as such, in the end, the judge decided that it is not the Demand for Payment on a Demand Promissory Note that’s key, it is the date that it is delivered or the date of the last interest payment, if an interest payment has been made.

Bianca La Neve: And obviously, Craig, this is in the context of Demand Promissory Notes.  So you have to always bear in mind the distinction between a Demand Promissory Note and a Promissory Note in which you actually state a date of repayment which may be a month, two months, two years down the line.

Craig Vander Zee: That’s right Bianca, because in those types of situations, it may be actually very clear as to when the date of the final payment is due.  And then presumably, that would be the triggering point for the limitation period. But you always have to be careful with all forms of Promissory Notes, and carefully read the Promissory Note and carefully deal with the Promissory Note when you’re dealing with a client.

Bianca La Neve: So Craig, according to the motions judge, when was the demand for payment, or when did the limitation period start running on this Demand Promissory Note?

Craig Vander Zee: It started running in October of 1998, the date of the last payment. And as such, I guess simply put, the mother was out of luck or her Power of Attorney was out of luck because of the interpretation. We’re not going to get into, Bianca, the actual decision itself, other than what the ultimate conclusion was and we’ve just commented on that.  But what I would point out is that it was a split decision at the Court of Appeal level in Ontario.  And the majority and the minority views were quite different. But rather than getting into the actual interpretations along the lines of the Limitations Act and how they intertwine, I think it’s probably more important that we discuss what kind of considerations you might have in dealing with a Demand Promissory Note.

Bianca La Neve: Craig, before we move on to the considerations in the context of estates, I wanted to just point out for our listeners that the Court of Appeal made no order as to costs.  So this actually…usually in a summary judgment motion, there’s this assumption, I believe, that if you win your summary judgment motion, you’re going to get costs. But in this case, the Court of Appeal indicated that because the case raised these novel points of interpretation, on which there was no existing case law to sort of guide the parties and because the issues were significant and arose early in the context of this new 2004 Limitations Act, there would be no costs awarded. 

Craig Vander Zee: Bianca, while the Hare and Hare case dealt with a Power of Attorney acting for the mother, in dealing with this issue in the estate context and considering the limitation period which under the new Limitations Act, that is, a Demand Loan that would perhaps be issued today by a parent to an adult child, the applicable limitation period would be two years from the date of delivery or the date of the last interest payment on the Demand Promissory Note. 

So what’s key is for estate trustee’s to really turn their minds early in their administration of the estate to whether there’s a Demand Promissory Note and what the appropriate limitation would be.  Because simply put, should either the parent or the adult child die, and that is the adult child who received the payment, before the repayment of the loan, it will be, in fact, the estate trustees of their respective estates that will become responsible for dealing with this problem. So if the parent dies, his or her estate will be the creditor in respect of the loan and the Demand Loan will actually be payable to the estate, unless the loan is forgiven in the parent’s Will or is dealt with by way of a hodgepodge clause or some other agreement. Looking at it from the adult child’s estate, should the adult child pass away first, the estate will become the debtor in respect to the loan and the loan will be payable by the child’s estate to the parent, unless the loan is forgiven by the surviving parent. So you really do have to be careful, given this new limitation period applicable to this and the Court of Appeal’s interpretation as to when Demand loans…the limitation period can be triggered on it, because it is a quick limitation period.

Bianca La Neve: As a result, during the parent’s lifetime, the parent should take into account certain considerations when they’re making a Demand Loan to an adult child.  And some of these considerations would include ensuring that at least interest payments are being made on the Demand Loan, so that you don’t…you continually re-trigger the beginning of a limitation period. Diarizing the date of any expiry of the limitation period, in the case where no interest payments have been made.  Or perhaps even having a new Demand Promissory Note executed before the expiry of the limitation period. 

Craig Vander Zee: As well, Bianca, you can consider entering into an agreement or an acknowledgement that the debt is outstanding prior to the limitation period.  But you have to be careful because this could be interpreted as simply a forbearance agreement.  And there are cases out there dealing with forbearance agreements and it’s possible that that may not be enough to save the limitation period. So you really do have to be careful.  You could try to secure the Promissory Note with collateral.  You could make demand for repayment on the loan early, within the two year period or early on after the last interest payment. Perhaps not really intending to fully enforce but doing that so as to protect yourself.  And then if you’re ever in doubt, then at the end of the day, you should commence an action, either by way of Statement of Claim or by Notice of Action.  And the Notice of Action will allow you thirty more days to file the Statement of Claim with the Court and then five months after that to serve the Statement of Claim. 

So, and perhaps lastly is to consider the loan as part of the parent’s estate plan.  And specifically, the parent might consider including a hodgepodge clause in the Will so that whether the loan is considered a loan or whether it’s just considered an advance, it’s taken into consideration in the Will.  But the topic of hodgepodge clauses and how they may be constructed in the Will is a topic for a different day.  And I’ll certainly miss not being able to discuss that one with you.  But I think that’s probably a good place to end it today.

Bianca La Neve: Thanks Craig.

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.

Beaverbrook v. Beaverbrook: When is a Loan a Gift?

A legal dispute in New Brunswick has been gaining attention in the national media. At stake is the ownership of artwork having a value of over $100 million.

On one side is the Beaverbrook Art Gallery in Fredericton, New Brunswick; on the other is the Beaverbrook U.K. Foundation. Both the Gallery and the Foundation were established by the late Lord Beaverbrook (who was raised in New Brunswick and went on to become a prominent figure in British business and a confidante of Winston Churchill).

The issue appears to be simple: were paintings and sculptures once owned by the late Lord Beaverbrook gifted or merely loaned to the gallery? Apparently (and remarkably) the arrangement was not papered in any clear way. The matter is being arbitrated by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Peter Cory and a decision is apparently expected in March.

A similar issue was considered by one of my partners, Justin de Vries, in his blog posting on September 27, 2006, in which the law relating to the making of gifts was considered in some detail. Simply put, to be valid a gift must be characterized by: (i) donative intent, (ii) acceptance by the recipient, and (iii) proof of delivery. It will be interesting to see the outcome.

Until tomorrow,

David