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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Listen to Dependency and Undue Influence

This week on Hull on Estates, Diane Vieira and Paul Trudelle discuss dependency and undue influence in the case of Bale vs. Bale. This topic is also discussed by Paul Trudelle in his blog post:

If the link does not work, cut and paste the following URL into your browser:

http://estatelaw.hullandhull.com/2008/04/articles/topics/estate-trust/dependency-and-undue-influence/

Dependency and Undue Influence - Hull on Estates Podcast #108

Posted on April 29^th, 2008 by Hull & Hull LLP

Diane Vieira: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #108 on Tuesday, April 29^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.

Diane Vieira: Hi and welcome to another episode on Hull on Estates, I am Diane Vieira.

Paul Trudelle:  And I’m Paul Trudelle. Hi Diane, how are you today?

Diane Vieira: I’m good, how are you?

Paul Trudelle: Very good, thank you for filling in.  You are filling in for Megan Connelly, who was going to be podcasting with me this week, but she ran off to South America.

Diane Vieira: Yes.

Paul Trudelle: She got out of it.

Diane Vieira: Yes

Paul Trudelle: She didn’t take any trust funds, and she is coming back so there’s nothing  wrong with her going. We hope she has a very good time, and I thank you for joining me today. You have a busy week.  In addition to podcasting, you are also blogging this week.

Diane Vieira: Yes I am. So it is…I will be featured heavily on the website this week.

Paul Trudelle: Yes. Today we thought we would spend some time and talk about a situation that arises in a lot of matters that we see.  It is the type of situation where there is an elderly person with two or three adult children.  The elderly person wants to provide for all of them, however the elderly person is often closer to one of the children.  And prior to death, a property gets transferred to that one child to the exclusion of the other children and they are not able to share in that other property, once the estate falls into place.  And that causes them much concern and leads to a lot of litigation.  So we thought we would talk a little bit about that today.

Diane Vieira: And we are going to discuss a case that you actually wrote a blog on last week, its Bale vs Bale.  And the facts in that case is similar a situation as you just pointed out.  There is a mom who, in her Will, leaves her estate to her three sons equally.  But prior to her death, she conveys her farm to one of the sons.  The son being the child who is taking care of her and the other two sons in the situation were actually not very much part of her life and didn’t provide any care for her and where the applicant’s position was that they were estranged from her.

Paul Trudelle: Right.  There was a bit of an issue is to how close these other children were and that usually is the case and there was evidence heard from both sides as to how close they were.  But I think for the purposes of discussion today, we can just presume that the one child was significantly closer to the mother than the other two.

Diane Vieira: So, just a bit of a background on what happened here was a few years prior to her death, the main asset of the estate was a farm.  And the mother gave the farm to the applicant.  And there was testimony as to the capacity of the mother to make this gift with respect, because the other two sons challenged her…challenged this gift and said it was given to the other son under undue influence.

Paul Trudelle: That’s right and there was actually some fairly extensive evidence from the solicitor who acted on the transaction and also from her family doctor as to her capacity and both the solicitor and her two family doctors felt that while she was elderly and frail, she did have capacity and she understood what she was doing when she gifted this farm to her one son.  Then the mother passed away and the one son brought an application to get a declaration that the gift was valid.  The other two children brought a cross-application to say that the gift was not valid and was a result of undue influence.

Diane Vieira: In the situation the mother, at the time of the gift, was ninety-three years old and a dependant of the applicant.

Paul Trudelle: I think that is quite important that evidence with respect to dependency. The mother was living with the son, she was quite adamant that she didn’t want to be moved into a nursing home and by living with the one son, she was able to avoid having to move into a nursing home, although she was found to be quite, you know, vulnerable and dependant and relied on that one son for essentially all of her care

Diane Vieira: The judge in this case noted that even though the mother likely did have capacity, she was very vulnerable at the time the gift was made in terms of she was just coming out of the hospital and didn’t want to go to a nursing home.  So that point came out in determining whether or not this was under undue influence

Paul Trudelle: That’s right and I think that is very important.  In looking at undue influence, we see undue influence with respect to gifts.  We also see it with respect to Wills that are often said to be the result of undue influence.  And the case law often states that undue influence is beyond influence, it must be undue and it must amount to arm twisting or coercion in the normal course.  If you are making an allegation of undue influence, however, that is quite different where there’s a relationship of dependency or vulnerability.

Diane Vieira: In this case, the judge did see a relationship of dependency and suggested that it was up to the applicant to rebut the presumption of undue influence.

Paul Trudelle: That’s right, and it’s because of that presumption that the onus shifts onto the receiver of the gift.  Presumption of undue influence doesn’t apply in every relationship, although it does apply in certain relationships such as a solicitor and client relationship, parent-child,  guardian and ward, and we are seeing it more and more in other relationships of dependency such as an elderly parent and an adult child.  And in this case, the judge found that there was a presumption of undue influence and in his analysis went through the cases in which you would find a presumption of undue influence and what follows from that. 

I think after finding a relationship of dependency, the Court will then, as set out by the judge in the  Bale and Bale decision and referring to the Goodman Estate and Geffin decision from 1991, a Supreme Court of Canada case.  After there is a finding of a relationship of dependency that gives rise to a presumption of undue influence, the Court will then look at the nature of the transaction.  If it is a commercial transaction or a sale or other transfer, they will look at whether there was consideration or not.  With respect to other transactions like this one where there is a gift, its not that easy to do that, so what the Court will then look at is the onus moving on to the defendant to rebut that presumption.

Diane Vieira: And in this case, the applicant, as part of his evidence, was he offered medical testimony in terms of capacity and her disappointment with her other sons.  However the judge rejects this in a way.  What he expected was evidence that this was a transfer made out of gratitude and that was something that neither the lawyer or the applicant spoke of, the reason for this transfer.  And he found that suggested undue influence.

Paul Trudelle: Right and I think they said that, the Court there said that in order to rebut the presumption, it would have to be a result of the mother’s full, free and informed thought.  She was extremely vulnerable and dependent upon the son for her care and that vulnerability tainted the transaction, so to speak.  And the Court concluded that the decision to convey the farm was the result of undue influence by reason of her dependency.

Diane Vieira: In this situation, do you think it would have made a difference if the mother had independent legal advice?

Paul Trudelle: I think that would help and I think if there was independent legal advice we would have perhaps some evidence with respect to the transaction and the reason for it.  Here there was legal…a lawyer was involved and documented the transaction but there was some question as to how the mother got to see the solicitor and as he stated, there was an absence of any notes with respect to the reason for the transaction, it seems.  So on the issue of undue influence and vulnerability as discussed there was a finding that the gift was made as a result of this undue influence, presumption of undue influence because of the dependency the elderly mother. The Court found that while there was a great deal of affection between the mother and the son and it didn’t say that there was anything improper about the relationship, you know, the Court felt that there wasn’t…the affection that they shared for each other wasn’t sufficient to validate the transfer of the farm to the son.  I think it is important to note there that the farm was essentially all of the estate and would leave the other children with nothing.

Diane Vieira: Another issue that was decided was in terms of the accounting that the applicant provided.  He did take a number…some money from his mother’s bank account while he was caring for her.  He used some of this money to purchase a truck.  He testified the truck was being used to transport the mother back and forth from medical appointments and what not.  In this case, the judge found that this truck was a gift.

Paul Trudelle: Right and I think just because it was a much smaller amount relative to the value of the estate and because of the findings of capacity, the elderly mother was said to have known about this gift and approved of it and consented to it.  I think because it wasn’t all of the estate, the Court was prepared to let that gift stand, whereas a gift of the entire estate was seen as too much.

Diane Vieira: And the judge also found that the respondents, the other two brothers, failed to prove their claim for a loss of occupation rent.  That was going back to the request that the other brother pay them the rent for the farm they had been using.

Paul Trudelle: Right and I think again the Court wanted to be seen as, you know, being fair and balancing that.  They didn’t allow the farm to go to the son but they weren’t going to turn around and charge him occupancy rent for staying in the property during that period because of the assistance he was providing to his mother.

Diane Vieira: So in the end, the judge ordered that the sale of the farm be set aside under the grounds of undue influence, while dismissing the respondents’ other requests for damages and occupation rent.

Paul Trudelle: Right and I think that is a good and useful discussion of that case.  It’s the type of case, as we said, that we see often and I think all of the circumstances surrounding any gift of property by a deceased prior to death need to be looked at.  It’s not just enough to say, well, what’s in the estate and how is it divided now? You’ve got to step back a little bit and see what was in the estate and where did it go, if it was a gift during the lifetime of the testator, was it a gift made while she had capacity, was it a gift that may be tainted by undue influence as a result of his or her dependency.

Diane Vieira: Do you think it would have made a difference if the mother in this case, since she did have capacity, made a new Will?

Paul Trudelle: I think it might have. I think again the same analysis that the Court went into with respect to undue influence with respect to the gift might be used with respect to an allegation of undue influence regarding the Will, if, rather than gifting the farm, she simply made a Will leaving the entire farm to her son, the same arguments would have been made, I expect.

Diane Vieira: I think that brings us to an end of this week’s discussion. Thanks for listening and thanks for joining me today, Paul.  

Paul Trudelle: Well, thank you very much. Diane, and we’ll speak to you again soon.

Diane Vieira: And we look forward to hearing from our listeners.  You can send us an email at hull.lawyers@gmail.com or just pick up the phone and leave us a message or comment at 206-305-6636.  Be sure to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com where you will find even more information and discussion on today’s practice of estate law. And you can find the case citation for Bale vs Bale on our website. We hope you enjoyed the show. I am Diane Vieira.

Paul Trudelle: I am Paul Trudelle.  And until next week, we’ll talk to you then.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Listen to "Spousal Exclusion Issues"
Read the transcribed version of "Spousal Exclusion Issues"

In this week's episode of Hull on Estates, David Smith and Diane A. Vieira discuss the issues surrounding spousal exclusion from the will of the deceased and how to challenge this exclusion.

Click "Continue Reading" to read the transcribed version of this podcast.

Spousal Exclusion Issues - Hull on Estates Podcast #74

Posted on August 28^th, 2007 by Hull & Hull LLP

David Smith: Hello and welcome to Hull on Estates. You’re listening to Episode #74 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 afternoon Diane.

Diane Vieira: Good afternoon Dave.

David Smith: Diane, today we decided that we’re going to talk about the issues that generally arise when the surviving spouse of the deceased walks into your office and shows you a Will where she’s not a beneficiary or he’s not a beneficiary. And asks you what you can do for him or her. And I understand that there’s a fact situation that we can relate to our listeners that might help illustrate this example, and I wonder if you could lead us into that.

Diane Vieira: The fact situation is we have someone who’s in a short marriage, less than two years, and they’re away for a short period of time on a small vacation. And during that time, her spouse makes a Will that completely cuts her off or leaves her a very small part of his estate. She doesn’t find out about this until after the Will has been probated and now she’s left in a situation of not knowing what her rights are or what’s she’s entitled to.

David Smith: I guess the first thing that jumps to mind, Diane, when you present the fact situation is a Will challenge. And I think if we look at the Will challenge first of all, does this fact situation, just as you’ve described it, give rise to any basis upon which to challenge the validity of that Will?

Diane Vieira: There are a few red flags that come up immediately. The Will was drafted when she was out of the country for a short period of time.  Other things to consider was the lawyer who drafted the Will was introduced to her spouse by a third party. There’s also some issues regarding the capacity of her spouse to make the Will or to transfer his assets at the time.

David Smith: In this situation where she’s out of the jurisdiction and the Will is made in her absence, what does that suggest in terms of creating a legal argument to challenge this Will?

Diane Vieira: The first thing that immediately comes to mind is undue influence by third parties and in this situation, it was other family members. They waited specifically for a period of time where her spouse would be isolated and she would not know about this Will until after.

David Smith: And earlier, Diane, you mentioned that she was, or that the deceased was taken to a new lawyer by a third party. Do we know in our fact situation as presented whether the third party who took the deceased to a lawyer was in fact one of the family members who benefits under this new Will?

Diane Vieira: In this case it was.  It was a family lawyer known to the other family members and who had done work for the other family members. And the lawyer who drafted the Will actually spoke to the other family members prior to ever speaking to her spouse.

David Smith: You know that just strikes me as just a fantastic set of circumstances. If I’m the lawyer wanting to challenge the Will, you’re telling me I’ve got a situation where the wife is out of the jurisdiction.  The theory will be that the family members swoop in, take the Dad or uncle or whoever the person is in terms of their relationship, to a lawyer of their choosing with whom they have a relationship. It’s kinda surprising, isn’t it, that that lawyer would even agree to make the Will in those circumstances?

Diane Vieira: It is, and it appears that it could be even the third parties in this circumstance who paid to have the Will drafted and the costs associated with that.

David Smith: Wow, I mean that’s just, that’s just something that, for a practicing lawyer, you got to think that the advice, common sense and any good advice would dictate that you just simply would not make a Will in those circumstances.  Or refer the deceased to someone else. So it sure sounds to me like there’s a good basis for a Will challenge there. Of course, if we’re alleging undue influence, the burden of proof is on the surviving spouse challenging the Will to prove undue influence, isn’t it?

Diane Vieira: Yes it is and another thing to consider is testamentary capacity. 

David Smith: And what are we looking for in terms of testamentary capacity?

Diane Vieira: Whether or not the testator was capable of drafting that Will or making his wishes known. 

David Smith: And, of course, we know from the case law, Banks and Goodfellow being the leading case, that what you need to demonstrate is that the deceased knew who he had obligations to, knew the value of his assets, and had a clear plan and a clear understanding of what it was he wanted to do. Now it’s quite possible he may have wanted to cut his wife out of his Will.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that he was capable if he didn’t know the value of his assets, didn’t understand that he had obligations.  It’s not enough simply to have the intention to want to deprive someone of their entitlements. I think now though what I’d like to do, Diane, is why don’t we segway into a different fact situation or same fact situation but different argument which is, let’s assume that we’ve got no basis for a Will challenge. What can we do to help such a person if she were to walk into our office in terms of advancing her entitlements when we don’t have a good case to make a Will challenge?

Diane Vieira: One thing she can, she or he can decide is to not take under the Will and make an equalization claim under the Family Law Act.

David Smith: Alright and in this case, if there’s no entitlement under the Will whatsoever, clearly electing under the Family Law Act would probably be the prudent thing to do.

Diane Vieira: It appears so.

David Smith: Right.  Certainly and, you know, we’ve talked a little bit about Family Law Act elections. The difficulty with Family Law Act elections is that they can be very complicated in terms of preparing the net family property statements and given a choice, what else or is there anything else, Diane, that can be pursued apart from a Family Law Act claim?

Diane Vieira: You might also consider a dependency claim under the Succession Law Reform Act under Part 5.

David Smith: If we want to make a claim for support under the Succession Law Reform Act on behalf of a spouse, can you give me a little bit of an explanation as to what that entails?

Diane Vieira: The spouse will have to look under the definition of dependent in the Act; if they do fall under that definition, they can make a claim.

David Smith: Let’s talk about that just briefly. How is a spouse defined under the Act?   I mean, do you have to be married or can you be a common-law spouse?

Diane Vieira: You can be a common-law spouse as long as you’ve lived together continuously for three years or if you have a dependent child together.

David Smith: Alright and so, I mean, in our fact situation, we’ve said that this was a situation where the deceased was married and I take it, it’s probably obvious that someone who’s married, that meets the definition of spouse as well.

Diane Vieira: Yes.

David Smith: And in terms of dependency, what does it mean to be a dependent?

Diane Vieira: First and foremost, you consider if the dependent is in need of support. There’s also, under Cummings and Cummings, a moral obligation, if that first part can’t be met.

David Smith: Yeah and I think, Diane, what we want to look at there, what we consider is, did the deceased have moral obligations to the spouse which give rise to a support claim? And can that exist independently of need? And, you know, that’s a whole topic for a separate podcast. But I think certainly we want to consider the relevant section of the statute.  And the relevant section of the statute for this purpose is Section 62 of the Succession Law Reform Act. And Diane, I wonder if you can just sort of touch on some of the issues that the court considers under that Section in determining the amount of support.

Diane Vieira: Some things the court will consider are the current assets of the person making the claim. The assets they’re likely to have in the future, the capacity to contribute to their own support, the person making the claims age, physical and mental health.  They will also look at the standard of living, what they were accustomed to when they lived with their spouse and the lifestyle they were accustomed to.

David Smith: And let me interrupt there, Diane.  I think that’s a really important point because if someone comes to your office as a spouse and says my spouse has died, I’m cut off, I’m now in a new relationship.  But my new spouse is not making anything close to the relationship I had with my previous spouse.  And yes, I’m able to get by, but no, I’m not going on vacations and out to dinner and what have you. Isn’t it fair to say that that person could still advance a support claim even though it’s as if they’re missing wants rather than needs.

Diane Vieira: I think that’s fair.  In their Affidavit evidence, they should demonstrate how the lifestyle has changed from what they were previously accustomed to, to what they’re accustomed to now.

David Smith: And then you touched briefly on the Cummings case, Diane, and you know, that’s, of course, engendered a whole lot of debate within the Estates Bar. A decision of the Court of Appeal saying that the court must consider if there’s any moral obligation owing by a spouse, a deceased spouse, to a surviving spouse which gives rise to a determination of support.  And really, the interesting language in that case is when the court says that a surviving spouse is entitled to a fair share of the estate.  And it’s going to take a lot of case law to determine exactly what that means. So I think, Diane, we’ll wrap things up here at this juncture but perhaps, you know, in terms of summarizing, perhaps you can just, for the listeners, summarize what we’ve talked about in very general terms, in terms of claims and entitlements that a surviving spouse can make.

Diane Vieira: Sure, if someone approaches you, a spouse that has been cut off from a Will or did not receive their fair entitlement, some things to consider would be a Will challenge if those circumstances exist. If that is not the case, they can try to make an equalization claim under the Family Law Act and not take under the Will. Or a third option is to make a dependency claim under the SLR Act.

David Smith: And in terms of preparing material and going to court with respect to this, what kind of information gathering should you do if you’re going to make a support claim?

Diane Vieira: I would gather evidence of the lifestyle that you were accustomed to before, the assets of the estate currently and I would refer to Section 62, subsection 1 of the SLR Act under the different subheadings there and see if you have evidence to support your claim.

David Smith: Right and then it’s that evidence which the court will consider, won’t it, in evaluating the claim? So thanks very much.  I enjoyed podcasting with you, Diane, and we’ll look forward to doing this again soon.

Diane Vieira: Thank you.  Bye.

David Smith: 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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The world wide web offers a wealth of information: some useful; some not so. Recently, I came across www.stealanestate.com. The website puffs “Get Rich! On Other People’s Money”, “Displace Rightful Heirs Legally!” and “Never Have to Work Again!”

The web page offers a three step program:

Step One: Assess Opportunities & Establish Yourself
Step Two: Discredit and Displace the Heirs
Step Three: Savour Your Triumph

Tips incude:

• Identify elderly affluent people who are alone;
• Use alcohol;
• Create reasons to see them often;
• Always take their side and fault anyone who disagrees with them;
• Get into a position of trust and authority;
• Act like the perfect son or daughter;
• Keep the rightful heirs ignorant of your relationship;
• Sever all communications between the victim and their heirs;
• Create conflict – lie to the victim about the heirs and their dishonesty and misdeeds.

The site contains many more “tips”.

At first blush, the site is shocking and disturbing. However, deeper into the site there is an explanation. The site claims be operated by individuals “currently in litigation fighting years of undue influence for our mother’s estate”. The tactics and tips set out in the site were apparently used against them. The page is “meant to shock you into action and attention.”

The site should be read as a cautionary tale: a shopping list of things to look out for: both for ourselves and for our loved ones, rather than as a “how-to” list on elder abuse.

Thank you.

Paul Trudelle

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence are usually difficult to prove. However, too many clients are willing to advance such claims on the basis of a weak evidentiary record. A recent decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal, Nicholson v. Kurtz sounds a note of caution.
Two sisters appealed a trial decision setting aside their father’s Will on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence.

The father’s previous Will had divided the residue of his estate equally between his three children. However, in 1998, the father, who was 92 at the time, retained a lawyer to prepare a new Will (“1998 Will”). The lawyer asked his client a series of questions. Some of the responses were inaccurate, but the lawyer ultimately concluded his client had capacity. The 1998 Will specifically stated that the father wanted to exclude his son “because I believe if he receives any money he will use it for liquor”. The son had been convicted of drinking and driving offences in 1987 and 1992.

The trial judge concluded that the father lacked capacity and was unduly influenced by his two daughters and set aside the 1998 Will. The Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed the trial judge’s decision. The 1998 Will was declared valid.

According to the Appeal Court, there was no medical evidence suggesting the testator lacked capacity and there was no direct evidence that the daughters influenced their father’s decision to exclude their brother. Moreover, the father’s lawyer specifically questioned his client to gauge his capacity during their first two meetings. Their third meeting lasted two and a half hours and the lawyer had no reason to conclude that his client’s capacity had changed. After reading the 1998 Will to his client, the lawyer was satisfied that it expressed his client’s wishes.

According to the Appeal Court, the finding of undue influence could also not be sustained on the record. The father’s reason for excluding his son was expressly stated in the 1998 Will. There was also clear evidence that the father’s wish to exclude his son arose several months before the 1998 Will was signed. The Appeal Court held that the trial judge simply failed to give any weight to this evidence. The trial judge also failed to give weight to the lawyer’s evidence that he discussed the possibility of the daughters’ influence with his client who expressly denied such influence. Mise en garde!!

Justin de Vries

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LISTEN HERE

READ THE TRANSCRIBED PODCAST HERE

During this podcast, Ian finished speaking about knowledge and approval, and talked about mistakes in that context as well as reviewing the concept of undue influence.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LISTEN HERE

READ THE TRANSCRIBED PODCAST HERE

During this podcast on suspicious circumstances, we discussed the following:

(i) the general concept of "suspicious circumstances" and what amounts to such circumstances;

(ii) the onus of proof on a propounder of a will and an alleger of undue influence;

(iii) the meaning of the phrases "the true will of the deceased", and the "righteousness of the transaction";

(iv) the rule in Barry v. Butlin; and

(v) the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Vout v. Hay. --------

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

LISTEN HERE

READ THE TRANSCRIBED PODCAST HERE

During our podcast, we discussed way to "bullet-proof" a will:

(i) ensuring you have proof of your mental capacity to sign a will;

(ii) protecting against claims of undue influence; and

(iii) ensuring your will is properly executed. --------