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

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 11

This week on Hull on Estate and Succession Planning, Ian and Suzana talk about the differences between quantum meruit and propriety estoppel. As with any add-on claims, the courts require solid corroboration. They also discuss claims of resulting trust and claims of constructive trust.

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

Will Challenge Litigation Part 11 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #136

Posted on October 28, 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 136 of our podcast on Tuesday, October 28, 2008.

Ian Hull: Hi Suzana.

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

Ian Hull: Great thanks. It’s a big day. It’s my brother’s birthday so “happy birthday” to my brother.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Happy birthday.

Ian Hull: And we’re going to, I’m sure he’s not listening, he’s stuck in the throws of a software development firm that is going crazy. 

Suzana Popovic-Montag: So you’re not going to sing?

Ian Hull: No, we’re not going to sing, we’ll definitely not sing. But we will invite everyone please, to come and hit our web page because we have had such great fun with feedback and just engaging in the social media world with people: estatelaw@hullandhull.com is where you can get your blog and hullandhull@gmail.com; we invite you to please feel free to send us an e-mail.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or feel free to leave an audio comment for us at 206-457-1985. We always appreciate hearing from people directly in terms of what they think.

Ian Hull: Absolutely. So where we left off last week was, and I actually got an e-mail from one of my colleagues about this question. And so we left off on this pointing out the difference. We talked about the concept of proprietary estoppel. We talked about the importance of not just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks but pursuing claims that need to be pursued. We talked about how best to pursue it with good corroborative evidence. But what we left off was, we left it sort of with the listeners hanging, so to speak, is what’s the difference between the two? And I guess, let’s talk about the result. What is the different result that you achieve between pursuing a proprietary estoppel claim and a quantum meruit claim? And then let’s talk a little bit about what a quantum meruit claim is because then you can frame the kinds of approaches you want to take in respect of an add-on claim to a Will challenge.

Suzana Popovic-Montag:  Well Ian, I typically tend to think of a quantum meruit claim as a claim like an hourly paid claim for services rendered to someone without having been paid at the time, but with the expectation that at some later point they’d somehow be compensated. Is that sort of how you view it as well?

Ian Hull: No question. And the big difference between a quantum meruit claim and a proprietary estoppel claim is that a proprietary estoppel claim allows the Court to give you a home run. Whereas the quantum meruit claim restricts the Court because it is a fee for services claim. As you say, it’s an hourly wage based claim. How much did you work for the individual whose now died who promised to pay you when they died and didn’t? And the Court will calculate your hours. So it’s a very different claim and we’ll talk a minute about how we pursue those claims but I think the result is the key and where again we come back to being surgical about what kind of claims we want to take is that if we think we can get the home run play, and that is, get the whole house as opposed to just some repayment of hourly wages, the proprietary estoppel claim opens us up to a tremendous result. And again, we come back to the classic example of a nice, elderly gentleman who was helping a widow with her home and when she said, in one of the leading proprietary estoppel cases, this will all be yours, the Court was able to say, this is really all of yours and that meant the house as opposed to don’t worry, you’ll be looked after. And that could be construed as more of a quantum meruit claim.

So let’s talk a little bit about the history as we’re in the world of, our case law is always historic in every way. The history of quantum meruit claims, so that we can help better understand how we’re going to pursue those kinds of claims.

And we go back to the 1940s in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada, where they started to develop the law out of England. And it basically came out of the same, the Degelman case its called and we’ll have the case in the Show Notes. But the case was much like my proprietary estoppel example in terms of the facts. And in Degelman the same sort of thing happened. A nice gentleman came to assist, in that case again, a widower and the comments were made and expectations were created that he would be paid for cutting the lawn and looking after the house and so on. And sure enough, when she died, he wasn’t. So the Court struggled with how we can deal with this unjust enrichment because the Court doesn’t like the idea that this person acted to his detriment and didn’t get paid. And so the Court basically sat down, and as you say, did an hourly wage basis analysis and said, took the Latin phrase quantum meruit, paid for work for services rendered approach, and said well, how many hours did you work and what’s a fair hourly wage? So the Degelman case established what is, I think, a really important add-on claim in a Will challenge because sometimes you can’t prove there’s lack of capacity. Sometimes you can’t prove you were promised the whole enchilada and the whole house. But you can prove your services rendered. And it comes back to this high standard that the Courts expect on corroboration and the fact that you’ve got to put such good evidence forward to the Court, or they’re not going to give you your claim.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right. I mean, the truth is, we do have the benefit of an equitable Court, I’d say, in the sense of what you just said, nobody wants to see someone work for free on an expectation that they would receive something at the end of the day. And when you’re in these situations, the facts are really going to drive, I think, the result, in addition to the evidence that you can put forward in support of it. But if you’ve got someone who is mowing the lawn, buying groceries and taking someone to appointments and that, you can see where a Court might think more in terms of a quantum meruit kind of claim, because those are kind of services that are rendered, as opposed to the other situation where you’re claiming proprietary estoppel and you’re dealing maybe specifically with maintaining a house or a farm property or something to that effect, where it might make more sense that the whole enchilada, as you say Ian, was what was expected, what was intended, and what hopefully you’ll be able to prove in terms of entitlement at the end of the day.

Ian Hull: So now that we’ve got two efficient and can be very powerful add-on claims, we also have to keep in mind the two other historic claims and that is, claims of resulting trust and claims of constructive trust. And why don’t we start with the resulting trust because that was historically, in a chronological order, the one that was established first. And it is the one that had such a big impact when you have joint assets. So let’s spend a minute on the concept of resulting trust.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Sure Ian, that’s a good idea. Now when we talk about a resulting trust, of course we’re talking about a situation where assets are held jointly and on the death of one of them there is an expectation, either of obtaining those assets by right of survivorship or by way of a resulting trust.

Ian Hull: And what the Courts have done is they’ve said if you have an asset and say this, even if it’s not jointly in some cases, if the asset is held by an individual. So you hold an asset that over the years you have allowed me to participate in and a classic example is a cottage property. So you hold it and over the years you’re the one that has put all the money in, you bought it, you kept it up. But from time to time, I used it or I at some level paid toward the costs, that kind of situation. The Courts will look at that illustration as something that may require a resulting trust because on my death, for example, like you said, say that cottage is jointly held between you and I. On my death, it would be by right of survivorship. But what if I held the property in my own name and you had paid me all the money to buy the cottage because you were lending me the money and you hadn’t shown anything on mortgage or anything like that. The bottom line was that you ended up, the title didn’t pass to you. That scenario can create a situation where a resulting trust argument needs to be pursued. And the joint accounts is the other classic.

So anyway what we’ll do in the next podcast is talk a little bit about the examples so that we can really lock down this concept of a resulting trust and then see where it developed in a constructive trust. And we remind everyone please, look forward to your feedback at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Or estatelaw@hullandhull.com which is our blog. And, of course, our phone number, 206-457-1985.

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 any questions or comments, please visit our website at hullestatemediation.com.

/mem

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 10

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian and Suzana discuss extraneous claims that can arise during a will challenge. In particular, they talk about propriety estoppel and other situations where someone worked to their detriment in the context of an estate dispute. For these kinds of claims, you require solid corroboration. Next week, Ian and Suzana will address the differences between quantum meruit and proprietary estoppel.

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 10 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #135

Posted on October 21, 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, and some of you may be watching, Episode 135 of our podcast on Tuesday, October 21^st, 2008.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana.

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

Ian Hull: Just great.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s good.

Ian Hull: So, working through our Will challenge process and thinking about some of the other issues you want to consider when you’re doing a Will challenge, I thought it would be a good idea to talk a little bit about some of these extraneous claims which can actually turn out to be the elephant in the room, so to speak. So, why don’t we start with just a brief discussion on the concept of proprietary estoppel and how that gets dove-tailed into a Will challenge. So, first of all, why would we be putting this on the table even as an issue?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And one of the reasons we’d be doing this, of course, is because of the fact that, when we’re doing a Will challenge we’re not necessarily sure, at the very beginning, just how successful our challenge is going to be. And so in an attempt to sort of hedge our bets as much as we can, we try to think of any other possible claims that we might be able to bring in conjunction with the Will challenge in the event that, for some reason, the challenge is unsuccessful. And we talked during our last podcast a little bit about the concept of quantum meruit, and I think that’s a nice segway for the whole discussion of proprietary estoppel, as well.

Ian Hull: Well, for sure, and let’s talk about what proprietary estoppel is. And we typically will bring these kinds of claims, only if it makes sense, because it doesn’t always pay to simply add to the costs and the burdens of running a Will challenge. But the concept of proprietary estoppel does stem from the whole thinking that if you are aggrieved, and you haven’t received under the estate as you thought you might. A typical Will challenge is obviously when a child gets written out of a Will and that is, of course, a situation where the child would think that they have been aggrieved. In this case of proprietary estoppel is one where promises are made by, say, an easy example of a proprietary estoppel claim might be some of the classic British cases where someone comes to assist an elderly individual, and one of the leading cases was an elderly woman who had a fairly vast property and needed care, not for herself, but looking after the property, and a gentleman and a neighbour in the town assisted her. She was assisted on the basis that he would come fairly regularly, two or three days a week. He’d cut the grass, fixed things, and so on. It was an old property and needed lots of work. And throughout this time period, she would constantly say to him, look, I can’t pay you now, I’m land rich and cash poor, but don’t worry, because when I die, you’ll be looked after. And she went so far as to say, one day, this will all be yours. Now this story is not entirely uncommon and lots of cases we see, that one day this will all be yours statement made.  And in the proprietary estoppel world and the quantum meruit world, as you say, that case can be very seriously pursued in the Courts. And the Courts will embrace the fact that this poor gentleman has worked to his detriment.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And the claim, Ian, really is an equitable one. So a Court is going to look at the factual situation and they’re going to, perhaps if there is a Will, they will say well, notwithstanding the terms of the Will, this was a set of egregious circumstances where someone has provided a service for someone, to his or her detriment, on the expectation that they be compensated and yet, at the end of the day, they’re not. And so how do we rectify that situation? And by virtue of this claim, and it is, in fact, a cause of action, the claim for proprietary estoppel, you can make this allegation. And I think what you said originally about the fact that we want to be very careful in the extra claims that we pursue during a Will challenge. It’s important to recognize the fact that strategically, we want to make sure that we don’t look like we’re just sort of all over the place.  So if we’ve got what we think to be a strong Will challenge, coupled with a strong claim for proprietary estoppel, I think strategically there’s a lot to be said about that kind of focused pursuit.

Ian Hull: And you know, as you say, it really just comes down to the Court looking at this and saying, has someone been unjustly enriched? And that is pretty well the threshold question that happens, practically speaking, in every Will challenge. Has one side of the family or one individual been unjustly enriched to the detriment of the other? And the key with the proprietary estoppel cases, is as you say, that we want to pursue them when it makes sense. We’re not, in our firm, big proponents of throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. We find it deludes our claim, because we can say to the people, well look, with vim and vigor, this kind of claim will or may well succeed. 

So, the fundamental point of law that we need to keep in mind, though, when we pursue these claims, are two-fold. One is the question of corroboration which I want to talk about, and the second is that you act to your detriment. You have to show that you did indeed come and cut the grass and come and look after the premises on a what would be seen as more than just a friendly, one-off basis. And the other aspect of it is, of course, this idea that you’re not going to succeed with this claim without good, solid corroboration, and that’s meaning supportive evidence from a third-party source that isn’t just your mother saying, that’s what happened. It’s sourced from an independent party, for example, the minister in town may have overheard this nice gentleman while he was talking to this nice elderly lady who, at that point, said, gee, thank you again for coming, this is the third time you’ve come this week, boy you’re spending a lot of time, don’t worry, I know you’re going to be looked after, one day this will all be yours.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And that really is very important in these kinds of claims, because otherwise, they are quite self-serving. And I know we’ve talked on previous podcasts about the need for corroboration, and this one, I think, particularly calls out for that kind of evidence because the other side is simply going to say, prove it, and you’ve got to do so.

Ian Hull: And the concept of corroboration, and my final thought on that is, it’s so strongly entrenched in the laws in any civil jurisdiction in Canada and in the United States, and it is set out in most of the statutes, most of the evidence statutes, it’s set out in that as well.  So there is such an importance placed by the Courts on this outside evidence to support it, so that you don’t just have people standing up in Court saying, these things were said, and not having the one person, who is the one who said it, around, and taking advantage of the death, so to speak. The Courts won’t tolerate it and legislatures have said that they won’t tolerate it and that’s why they put the statutes in. 

So our next aspect of this whole idea of proprietary estoppel is quantum meruit.  And the distinction, I think, is very important to make, because of the difference of the result. And I think in our next podcast we’ll talk a little bit about the quantum meruit concept and talk a lot about why there is such an important distinction between the two and why you may want to pursue proprietary estoppel or both, but keeping your eye on the ball, so to speak, because of the result, not as much as because of the case. So we remind everyone please, feel free to call in at 206-457-1985. Give us your comments and your feedback. The social media world, we embrace it, and we’d really love to hear from you.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And of course, we invite you to visit our blog at estatelaw.hullandhull.com or, if you prefer to e-mail us at hullandhull@gmail.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 any questions or comments, please visit our website at hullestatemediation.com.

/mem

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 9

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian and Suzana discuss other claims that can be made concurrent to a classic will challenge. In particular, they talk about quantum meruit claims and how these can be interpreted differently depending on the situation.

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 9 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #134

Posted on October 14, 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 134 of our podcast on Tuesday, October 14^th, 2008.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana.

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

Ian Hull: Great.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s good.

Ian Hull: So, we were developing some of the, what we seem to be at now, is the sophisticated issues, some of the, which aren’t all that complicated, but they’re sophisticated issues that are tied into a classic Will challenge and what our clients can expect on either side, defending or propounding or upholding the Will. And we promised that we’d talk about today a development that kind of stems from the corporate issues that we talked about in our last podcast, and that is some of the other claims that can be made that are equally important, that aren’t falling directly in the whole closet of a Will challenge proceeding, but are often pursued concurrent, or at the same time literally, as the Will challenge proceedings. 

So let’s start with the classic, the one that was developed in Canada and throughout the U.K. in the mid-1900s, and that is the concept of quantum meruit.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And that, of course Ian, I think you’re referring to the fact that a claim can be made against an estate on behalf of someone who says that during the lifetime of the deceased, I provided him or her with services for which, now that they’ve passed away, I should be compensated for.

Ian Hull: And that came out of a case in Canada, the Degelmena case, and that case, it’s a great story because what happened there, and the Courts saw this story unfold.  This nice gentleman acted, helped a woman out and performed day-to-day services for that woman, cutting the grass, looking after her affairs and so forth, almost handymanish kind of work, but a lot. And the Court said, and throughout his lifetime he appeared to be under the impression that he was going to be looked after, because the comments from this nice widow were, you will be looked after, don’t worry. He was never paid during it, so he worked away at this. And quite frankly, ultimately, he wasn’t looked after. And the Court looked at this problem and struggled with it and it’s an interesting development, because we’re going to go from the concept to quantum meruit, all the way through to the concepts of proprietary estoppel, all of which sort of tie in together. But staying with the quantum meruit claim, the Court said this isn’t right, we’re not going to let this happen, you can’t do this to people. They can’t be expected to have worked for free. And so the Court imposed what they call quantum meruit; that is, paid for work and services provided.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right. And you know, we’ve looked at the cases and we know that these are very difficult cases to predict the result of and that’s because there’s such a subjective component to the evidence that a judge is going to hear, and to the evidence, of course, that’s going to be led, and to what ultimately, I think, in fairness, a judge says, yeah that is what would be fair in the circumstances. 

Ian Hull: And in coming through that analysis in the quantum meruit context, the Courts we find, are typically looking at an hourly wage analysis. They say, well, how long did you work, how many hours a day did you work? Taking it outside of the case that we’ve just talked about, taking it into a situation where a daughter and a mother are alive, and the daughter is the dutiful daughter and works hours on end, does healthcare help, does financial care help, all of those things that we talk about in Power of Attorney fights and how we get compensated, but more importantly, gets into the same scenario and doesn’t get paid. Well that angle, in the context of quantum meruit, the daughter would naturally want to say listen, I want to make a claim and they’d come to see us and say, I want to make a claim. There’s a big difference here. We talked about our first case and that was the work of a handyman, a third party, maybe friend, but not a family member, not a close family member. Now in the second illustration I’m talking about is a daughter and mother. How do the Courts react to that scenario as opposed to the handyman scenario?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well as you can imagine, I think a judge will be more reluctant to recognize the services rendered by someone who’s a family member than someone who’s a third party. And the reason for that is simply because of all of our expectations in society that children do take care of parents or that parents will take care of children in reciprocity. And so, in that situation, it really becomes, I would suggest, a question of the evidence. What kind of evidence can you demonstrate or lead to show the judge that yes, this was dutiful work that would have had to have been provided to mom but someone, if it wasn’t dutiful daughter, would have had to provide for and mom would have had to pay for. This brings you back to the question of what kind of records do you have? How can you demonstrate that there was X number of hours that ought to be paid on a certain basis? These are not easy claims really to pursue, but I think they are important ones in a lot of circumstances.

Ian Hull: And they really are and I mean, I’ll say it once and I’ll say it again, people don’t remember this, but sometimes, is that judges are people too.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: And they sit there and they say, they see a case like this, and we’re talking about the daughter-mother scenario, and they say, they struggle, because they say, you know what, that’s what kids are supposed to do. Now naturally, that’s the natural order of life sort of thing.  And then they balance it against, like you say, well if the child hadn’t done it, she would have had to have had an independent third party do it, and they’ll go out and they’ll test the market. They’ll expect counsel at these trials to have put to them details of what’s the market rate, what would that have been, what is a duty care nurse or what is a person to cut the lawn scenario. And so, it’s really as you say, it’s a tough case. When you’re doing it, you almost never remember to keep good records, because you’re doing it for your mom, because you’re also doing it, or the handyman scenario, you’re doing it because you were promised that it was going to be okay and that you would be looked after. And when the day of reckoning comes and the Will doesn’t look after you, obviously disappointment comes, and you have to scrounge around and collect your evidence at a time that it may be too late.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Another thing that’s particularly difficult I find in these situations is that they can tend to be very emotional pieces of litigation, and the reason for that is because typically it’s another family member that’s saying, you shouldn’t have done that. It’s the brother saying, you know what, you were living with mom, you were living off her back anyways, you should have been providing these services, and that’s just not always the case. And so when you add that emotional element to the difficulty, of course, in finding the evidence to support these kinds of claims, they really can be difficult.

Ian Hull: Absolutely. And so having said that, as difficult as they are, it’s an element of the process. And when someone comes to see us about a Will challenge, there’s a bit of a checklist that we like to go through, whether it’s defending or propounding, and the first one is how good is your case in the Will challenge. And we go through that, and we’ve already talked about that in previous contexts and previous podcasts. Then we say, okay, can we supplement your case with a claim like this, to add on, to layer on the pressure to the other side, and then, or vice versa, are we going to be faced with that kind of claim. If you’re going to say, and a classic scenario that the child has been written out of the Will and gets nothing, well it’s not always a full stop there. And a quantum meruit claim might be the kind of claim you would consider layering on, to help bolster your position, and it’s a strategic position on either side. 

So, I think that’s a really good illustration of where these tangential claims get made in the context of the overall Will challenge proceeding. There are many other ones worth considering, and there are some creative ones as well. But from our standpoint anyway, that’s the starting point. And that’s the quantum meruit claim. There’s probably three or four other ones that are worth considering that are appropriate layering on. And that one, the next one that we could consider is, of course, the concept of proprietary estoppel, because it’s an extension of quantum meruit. And the proprietary estoppel claims, I think, are, well they’re very, very much used in the U.K. and I think are an interesting tool that we want to talk about. And I think what we’ll do is, we’ll spend some time in our next podcast talking about the expanded claim essentially of the quantum meruit , and that is, proprietary estoppel. So we’ll look forward to that podcast.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Absolutely. Thanks very much, Ian. Just a reminder to our listeners, to feel free to provide us with any feedback you might have on our podcasts at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Ian Hull: And please feel free to call in at 206-457-1985. Thanks, Suzana.

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

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 8

This week on Hull on Estates, Ian and Suzana discuss corporate issues and implications during a will challenge. Issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence can become extremely complex questions to investigate in a corporate inquiry.

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 8 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #133

Posted on October 7, 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 133 of our podcast on Tuesday, October 7^th, 2008.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana.

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

Ian Hull: Just great.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s good. Just a quick reminder to our listeners to feel free to call and leave us any comments you might have on our call-in line which is 206-457-1985.

Ian Hull: And of course, look to our blog at estatelaw@hullandhull.com and an e-mail, we would welcome any comments through hullandhull@gmail.com. 

So, Suzana, as we are discussing the Will challenge process and you say, listening, and we’re also on the video as well, let’s spend some time today talking about a branch of what we see commonly arising in Will challenges, and that is, what is the corporate implications and what sort of corporate issues can arise?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And this really is a timely issue, and I think one that we see in many files, just by virtue of the fact that our estates tend to be quite large these days.  And as part and parcel of the planning during a lifetime, there is going to often be a corporate component.

Ian Hull: And that corporate component also, in Ontario, is very much highlighted because we have the primary and secondary Will regime, where assets are being placed, corporate assets are typically being placed in the secondary estate. So we have to be alert to the fact that a lot of estates are going to have a corporate element to it. And what we will tell our clients often is, sit back and help us understand the corporate machinations. And they’ll look at us sort of strangely and say, well what does that have to do with testamentary capacity? Or what does that have to do with undue influence? How can that have any impact on either upholding a Will or setting aside a Will? And the answer to that is fairly straightforward. And that is this: that an element of testamentary capacity is to know and understand the nature and effect of your dispositions. What does that mean? Well, that means that typically, the person who undertakes the Will and estate plan has to understand what they’re doing. Now the case law, without getting too intricate in it, gets very close to the line. It talks about whether or not you knew and understood, but it doesn’t expect the testator to have every single aspect of the estate plan understood at every level of minutiae. 

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And the reason, of course for that, is because these things tend to be complicated, and for a lay person, certainly we can set up corporations and have these kinds of arrangements put in place.  But again, without understanding the minutiae, because we’re relying on professionals to help us with that part of the process.

Ian Hull: And so the Courts have historically said, if you want to develop a complex estate plan, as long as you understand the concepts, you understand generally what’s going on, the Courts have typically been fairly lenient and they won’t go so far as to suggest that the individual didn’t know and understand. So we say to our clients, though, having said that, the problem is this: what if you truly didn’t know and understand? And what if the corporate machinations are so complex, or, that the very fundamental effect of the corporate dealings had such a dramatic tax impact on death that you didn’t understand that? Does that drive into this possibility that the Will is not valid? And that is really what we want to highlight today. And the short answer is, yes. The Courts will start to say, well, wait a minute. Did the deceased understand that by putting a corporation, establishing a corporation this way, would result in a tax over here that would then affect another beneficiary that maybe that deceased didn’t understand. And a classic example is that, in Ontario and Canada throughout is that, RRSPs, and that illustration really demonstrates what a knowledge and approval could be in a situation like that.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And the key of course, is the fact that you can’t give something away that you don’t own, but you need to know what you own before you can decide how you want to give it away and to whom.  And so to be able to demonstrate that this was, in fact, the case, is maybe quite important in these situations. And of course, that just leads me to think to the evidential difficulties that arise in proving ownership or what someone thought they owned or understood they owned. And again, that comes back to some of our previous discussions, Ian, where that is a difficult thing to establish in some circumstances, so we’ve got to be ready for it.

Ian Hull: Absolutely. And where these things start to get balled up and mixed up is that if someone does a classic estate freeze, where they have a company and they’ve developed it, and they get to the point where they say we want to freeze the tax liability there and then we want to put all of the growth into the hands of my children, and let them enjoy the growth. That’s the classic estate freeze, and we won’t get into great detail today, but one worthy of its own podcast or two. That scenario may well not have been fully understood by the deceased. The deceased may not have understood that impact and then, it might have an impact on and drill down on this whole question of whether or not he knew and understood the nature and effect of his dispositions.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And in the right circumstances, it really can have a snowball effect, and that’s something that we certainly will try to keep in mind when we’re talking with clients about these kinds of situations.  

Ian Hull: So it seems to me that we’ve tried to answer hopefully the question of, well, why are you bothering getting into an inquiry which could be cumbersome, it can be voluminous. I mean, you talk to people who get into these situations and they’ve established a corporation 30 years ago. You’re looking at the possibility of having to look at corporate records over 30 years. You’re looking at the possibility of talking to the accountant about corporate records over 30 years. Now that may be an extreme example, but if you have multiple corporations and so on, it adds a layer of complexity, when we talked about that intense investigation stage. This adds a layer of complexity. And it comes back to this point that often our clients will say, give me a budget. Tell me how much this is going to cost me.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s right.

Ian Hull: And it’s very difficult when you have corporations. So we will tell our clients: (a) we think we have to look into it, at what level depends on each fact of the case; and (b) we’re not going to promise you that a quick review of the minute book is going to be sufficient. Because it can undermine the whole question of testamentary capacity which is the cornerstone of a significant percentage, I would say higher than 80% of Will challenges, are fundamentally based on the allegation that the deceased did not have testamentary capacity. We’ve talked about the other prongs of attack, but the testamentary capacity tends to be the strongest and the most forcefully pursued element, and so the corporate aspect of it is an important element as well. 

So, during our next podcast, what we’re going to talk a little bit about and we’re going to kind of go sideways, I think, but I think it’s a worthwhile time to, as we set up the types of claims that can be made and we talk about the types of claims that can be made. We’re going to talk about some of the claims that are made concurrent, or at the same time as a Will challenge, which, the old adage is, throw mud at the wall to see what sticks. Well, we don’t really typically, we don’t encourage our clients to throw mud at the wall and see what sticks strategy, because sometimes that bounces back.  But you also want to consider what other claims and we’re going to talk about quantum meruit claims, we’re going to talk about proprietary estoppel claims, things like that, that add more sauce to the gravy.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: That’s great, Ian, I look forward to our next podcast. Just a quick reminder, of course, to our listeners, please feel to call and provide us with any feedback or any comments you might have, on either the video format or the audio portion of our discussion today. Our number is 206-457-1985. 

Ian Hull: And of course as I remember, please e-mail us at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Thanks very much, Ian.

Ian Hull: Thank you.

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

Listen to Will Challenge Litigation - Part 7

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

They discuss fraud as one of the most serious ways in which a will can be challenged. Evidential requirements are important when allegations of fraud or forgery are made. Handwriting analysis and other scientific means of determining the legitimacy of evidence can be employed to determine whether or not fraud has occurred. Ian and Suzana also talk about lack of proper execution being grounds to challenge a will.

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 7 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #132

Posted on September 30, 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 #132 of our podcast on Tuesday, September 30^th, 2008.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana.

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

Ian Hull: Just terrific, thank you. I’m looking forward to today’s podcast and videocast because it touches on one of the areas of the Will challenge process that I find somewhat intriguing and probably the most intriguing. We finished our last podcast talking about the issues, the core central issues, well we really spent the most of our last podcast on undue influence. Today, let’s wrap up these issues as best we can in terms of the legal issues, and let’s talk for a minute, as we said in our last podcast, it’s not worthy of a lot of attention because there’s so few cases that deal with the question of fraud. But the one area where it does get dealt with is fascinating.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And that’s when the allegation is that the Will that’s actually being put forward was not, in fact, signed by the deceased, so that it was essentially forged. And that allegation of fraud is one of the most serious allegations you can make at law. And so Ian has said in our earlier podcast we, as counsel, are very, very careful in advising clients whether or not to pursue this allegation because once you make it, there are serious consequences associated with that allegation.

Ian Hull: And those are, of course, that if you’re wrong, you could be exposed to every cent of the cost in the process. And judges come down very hard on you if you allege fraud and don’t prove it. So that’s hovering around, and that’s a big part of why fraud is not used because the judges in Will challenges aren’t as rough on you if you’re alleging undue influence and capacity in the costs context. But the forged Will is one that does come up from time to time, and there is a fairly easy way to deal with it and one that, as I say, is fascinating, because if you read these reports, it’s like magic. And that is, is that you can get handwriting analysis done. So you get the Will, the client comes in and says, look, my dad was not well, but more importantly, there’s no way this is his signature.  So one of the things we would do is, is that maybe even before we allege the fraud, we would move fairly quickly if we could get a copy of the original, to get a report from a forensic, and one of the great ones, Diane Kruger, who is one of Canada’s leading experts, and Brian Lindbloom, is another Canadian expert in this area.  We get an expert opinion as to whether or not that’s the valid signature of the deceased. And how they do it is kind of a neat process, and the first steps that we take to do that.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And it’s a really scientific process that’s based on comparison with other original signatures.  And so when we’re talking, and we’ve talked in previous podcasts about this intense investigation stage, one of the things that we may be looking for if the allegation is, in fact, a fraud or forgery, is for documents that bear the testator’s original handwriting, their signature and other ways that we can demonstrate that this was the way that someone would typically sign something or that someone would write something.  And those kinds of evidential requirements are really important when you make these kinds of allegations.

Ian Hull: And so when you come into this, and where you’re looking at it is, this is the homework that we’re going to impose on the client. They want to make that allegation, we’ll typically say, okay, go back and seek out signature specimens.  And these experts will typically say we want specimens that are time specific. They will say as close to the time that the signature of the Will was made, because as we know, elderly people, and all of us, our signatures change over the years, so the more current, the more effective the evidence is. And this really, this evidence can really explode a law suit and, obviously, the question of fraud is a tremendous emotional question as well.  So whatever we can do at the outset to deal with it quickly, get lots of good specimens and get the opinion out of our expert, and get a good expert, is another sophisticated level that we can take this. 

Now Suzana, let’s talk for a minute about that possibility that we can’t get at: (a) original specimen signatures; or (b) we can’t get access to the original Will because the other side’s being difficult.  What do we do then?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well that’s another situation with another level of possible litigation where you’re going to have to possibly consider bringing a Motion before a Court, in order to have the authority to compel the individual with the original Last Will and Testament to bring it into Court, so that you can have the opportunity to provide that and any other specimen signatures to the individual who’s going to prepare your report for you. And that, you know, when we talk about these extras, or the bells and whistles to litigation, sometimes these steps will arise. We could never predict that we would have such a difficult time getting it, but there are mechanisms that we can, fortunately, turn to in order to be able to get this for our clients.

Ian Hull: And this is sort of a procedural side show. And there’s orders for assistance we can get for a lot of different relief that we’d want, and we’re going to talk about those orders for assistance at a different podcast. But, you’re right, Suzana, if there’s a mechanism available, it’s an additional cost, delay, it’s another part of the battle, but it can be done. So, we’ve wrapped up the question of fraud which is the classic scenario. There’s obviously other areas where fraud is pursued, but that’s the classic one.

Let’s just take a minute now to look at the question of lack of proper execution. Not because, we haven’t ignored it because it isn’t important. In fact, this can be the fatal blow. And why do I say that? Why do I say this could be the fatal blow, Suzana?

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Well, again, Ian, just because it’s one of those grounds. And if you can demonstrate that a Will is not a valid testamentary document, then the game’s over.  The Will challenge is over in the sense that that document is set aside so you’re looking to either a prior Will or possibly an intestacy.

Ian Hull: And we love the fact that these podcasts are listened to all over the world and all across Canada, and so we try to, whenever we can, be fairly global about what some of our comments are and where the law trends are going. And one of the trends with lack of due execution in Ontario is there was some case law bouncing around over the last 10 years, but it’s come down pretty clear that the terms of the Succession Law Reform Act must be followed. You must have two witnesses in the room at the same time when the individual signs it, no excuses, no what they call substantial compliance. There’s no way of getting out of it. The alternative, of course, is in some of the other jurisdictions and that is, the question of substantial compliance.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: And that really is the key, because what had happened in Ontario is that the judges were recognizing the fact that in other provinces in Canada, sometimes Wills were being allowed to be probated or were being upheld by judges when there was perhaps only one witness or when there was some other form of less than perfect compliance with the legislation. So, substantial in the sense that close enough was good enough in those jurisdictions. But our Courts here in Ontario have come down quite strongly on the fact that no, we have legislation, it provides for specific requirements, and those requirements have to be met if a Will is going to be valid here in Ontario.

Ian Hull: Manitoba’s an example of a substantial compliant province, and there are others as well, so it’s worth exploring because the different jurisdictions approach it differently. But, it’s a mandatory compliance rule in Ontario.  It’s a full stop if the Will hasn’t been executed properly in most situations. There are some variations on every theme, any time you put an absolute, you’ll have a judge to say, wait, there’s no absolute. But it’s an important issue to always check off on the checklist, that we always do with our clients. 

So, those are the sort of five important areas of attack, and there are more, and there are other strategic steps that we want to consider, now that we’re into the Will challenge process. We are into the litigation. We’ve talked enough about process a few podcasts ago.  We’re into it, and these are the kinds of strategic and legal considerations we’re going to start to make. And we’ll talk about some of the other ones in our next podcast. So, thanks very much, Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Thanks to you, too, Ian. And just a reminder if anyone would like to send us some feedback, feel free to send us an e-mail at hullandhull@gmail.com.

Ian Hull: And our call-in number - 206-457-1985. Thanks very much for listening.

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

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

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

They continue to discuss the value of the discovery process and intense investigation. The goal is to get to the mediation process as soon as possible. New evidence may lead to the next stage: the pre-trial. Ian and Suzana talk about the pre-trial process and what you can expect during this stage.

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.

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

They continue to discuss the value of the discovery process and intense investigation. The goal is to get to the mediation process as soon as possible. New evidence may lead to the next stage: the pre-trial. Ian and Suzana talk about the pre-trial process and what you can expect during this stage.

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 4 - Hull on Estate and Succession Planning - Podcast #129

Posted on September 9, 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 #129 of our podcast on Tuesday, September 9^th, 2008.

Ian Hull:  Hi, Suzana.

Suzana Popovic-Montag: Hello Ian.

Ian Hull: So we’ve swiftly moved out of the summer into the early Fall and we’re going to continue to work through this Will challenge discussion and the process itself.  In our last podcast, we talked about the concept of when we will go to discoveries and when we will go to mediation, what mediation is, what are discoveries. And working from our flowchart, I think it’s worth emphasizing the intense investigation stage is so crucial. If we can get a good flow of information from obtaining a good, broadly comprehensive order for directions, and we can get the three corners of a law suit and a Will challenge, get the lawyer’s notes, assess it, analyze it, depending on whether you’re defending or challenging the Will. The second part, medicals, get as much of the medicals as possible. And the third component, chase down the lay witness evidence. Chase down the witnesses, what the neighbours and friends and priests and so forth are going to say. 

So, if you can do that, and you can really, this is a bit of a heavy loaded stage in the law suit. This intense investigation is where this branches out into really settlement, all out war, how we’re going to manipulate the process in that sense. And that’s why it is such an important question: Do you go to mediation or do you go to discoveries? The right cases you go to discoveries or depositions right away, because what has come out of this intensive investigation are really good questions that you want to explore. And an easy example is when your case is very light on medical evidence and lawyer’s notes. The lawyers are saying, yes, say you’re challenging. The lawyers are saying, yeah the deceased knew what he was doing.  And the medical evidence is light, because the deceased, although you think was completely out of i