Deceased Assets Vest In Executor

Deceased Assets Vest In Executor

A deceased person’s assets vest in his or her executor or administrator after death.

If an executor is removed or renounces the new executor/trustee then holds the assets in trust as they now vest with the new executor/trustee.

Browne v Browne Estate 2015 BCSC 28, the court  removed an executor and stated:

[22]         At common law the executor derives title from the will: Sustrik Estate v. Floyd, 2005 ABQB 880.

Section 102 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 provides:

(2)        The estate of a deceased person vests in the person’s personal representative when the personal representative assumes or is appointed to that office.

Removal of Executor

Removal of Executor
 Re Kolic Estate 2016 BCSC 1312 contains an excellent summary on the criteria for the removal of executor.
 
In Kolic the court ordered the removal of executor for basically choosing sides in the litigation concerning the very will that she was to remain impartial over pending the litigation.
22      The authority to remove Mary and substitute another individual as executor to Violet’s Will is found under s. 31 of the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court. Given that a Master does have any inherent jurisdiction to exercise, the basis for Joseph’s remedy must be s. 31. That provision reads as follows:
31 If it is expedient to appoint a new trustee and it is found inexpedient, difficult or impracticable to do so without the assistance of the court, it is lawful for the court to make an order appointing a new trustee or trustees, whether there is an existing trustee or not at the time of making the order, and either in substitution for or in addition to any existing trustees.
23      In Miles v. Vince, 2014 BCCA 289 (B.C. C.A.), the court adopted the following guidelines when considering an executor’s removal and substitution:
84 What circumstances justify the removal of a trustee? In Letterstedt v. Broers (1884), 9 App. Cas. 371 (J.C.P.C.), the court established guidelines justifying the removal of a trustee (at 385-389):
1. If the Court is satisfied that the continuance of the trustee would prevent the trusts being properly executed, the trustee might be removed. It must always be borne in mind that trustees exist for the benefit of those to whom the creator of the trust has given the trust estate.
2. The acts or omissions must be such as to endanger the trust property or to show a want of honesty, or a want of proper capacity to execute the duties, or a want of reasonable fidelity.
3. In exercising the delicate jurisdiction of removing trustees, the Court’s main guide must be the welfare of the beneficiaries. It is not possible to lay down any more definite rule in a matter that is so “essentially dependent on details often of great nicety.” The Court must proceed to look carefully into the circumstances of the case.
4. Where a trustee is asked to resign, and if it appears clear that the continuance of the trustee would be detrimental to the execution of the trusts, even if for no other reason than that human infirmity would prevent those beneficially interested, or those who act for them, from working in harmony with the trustee, and if there is no reason to the contrary from the intentions of the framer of the trust to give this trustee a benefit or otherwise, the trustee is always advised by his own counsel to resign.
5. The lack of jurisprudence in respect of the removal of a trustee reflects that a trustee when asked to do so, will resign.
6. If, without any reasonable ground, the trustee refuses to do so the court might think it proper to remove him.
7. Friction or hostility between trustees and the beneficiary is not of itself a reason for the removal of the trustees. But where the hostility is grounded on the mode in which the trust has been administered, where it has been caused wholly or partially by substantial overcharges against the trust estate, it is not to be disregarded.
24      The first question to be answered is whether Mary is properly fulfilling her role as executor. In my view, she is not.
25      The primary duty of an executor is to preserve the estate assets, pay the debts and distribute the balance to the beneficiaries entitled under the Will, or in accordance with any order made varying the terms of the Will. The executor should not pick sides between beneficiaries, and should be indifferent as to how the estate is to be divided: Quirico v. Pepper Estate, 1999 CarswellBC 2177 (B.C. S.C.).

Executor Can Be Liable For Unaccounted Expenses

Executor Can Be Liable For Unaccounted Expenses

Jackson v King 2003 BCSC 328 is a good decision on a passing of accounts and held inter alia that an executor is entitled to be indemnified expect for unaccounted or excessive expenses for which the executor can be held personally liable.

The Court held:

12      As Executors, the Respondents are entitled to be indemnified out of the Estate for all proper expenses incurred in relation to the Estate and this right of indemnity is a first charge upon the capital and the income of the Estate: Halsbury’s Laws of England, vol.17, 4th ed. (London: Butterworths, 1976) at 612, paragraph. 1190. The Respondents are also entitled to be indemnified for all costs including legal costs which are reasonably incurred: Goodman Estate v. Geffen (1991), 81 D.L.R. (4th) 211 (S.C.C.). As well, the Respondents are entitled to full indemnity for all costs and expenses properly incurred in the due administration of the Estate: Thompson v. Lamport, [1945] S.C.R. 343 (S.C.C.).

14      In these regards, the following passages from D.W.M. Waters, Law of Trusts in Canada 2nd ed.(The Carswell Company Limited: Toronto, 1984) are instructive:

A trustee is essentially one who is managing the affairs of others. He may have a personal beneficial interest, indeed, he may for all apparent purposes be the only beneficiary, but as a trustee he still remains subject to the obligation to account for his administration to those who may have an interest in the trust fund, whether as beneficiary or creditor. This obligation has been called the duty to disclose.(at p. 871) (footnotes and citations omitted)

The trustee is expected to have his accounts ready within a reasonable period of time from receiving the request. If the trust has been in existence for some time, the affairs or investments of the trust are complex, and the records are to be found in a series of books and documents, the court would take an appropriate view of what is reasonable. These are the kind of factors which are relevant. It may also make a difference as to what is reasonable whether the person making the request is interested in the accounts at large, or the particular accounts which concern his own interest. Nor will the courts permit the requesting person to use the courts as a means of gaining rapid access to the trust accounts. In Re Smith, McRuer C.J.H.C. followed Maclennan J.A.’s word in Sandford v. Porter that the law only asks of the trustee what is reasonable. This means that no beneficiary or creditor can bring a vexatious motion for the purpose of harassing a trustee. (at p. 872)(footnotes and citations omitted)

Creditors will normally have the right to demand an account as a consequence of statute, but the question arises as to what persons with an interest in the trust can claim an accounting. An “interest” is in fact broadly construed. Persons with vested or contingent interests are entitled to seek an inspection or request the court for an accounting, and next-of-kin and personal representatives of such interested persons are recognized. As far as asking the court for an accounting is concerned, none of these persons has an absolute right. As we have seen, harassing the trustee is vexatious litigation, and whether the court will order an accounting depends entirely upon the court’s discretion and the circumstances of the case. (at p. 873) (footnotes and citations omitted)

The Duties of an Executor Under a Will

Duties of Executor

Duties of  Executor is an example of one of the many excellent publications that the Canadian bar Dial- A Lawyer library has for free public access.

I have reprinted this article from the said library as it is an excellent summary of the daunting task faced by many executors.

The Dial-A-Law library is prepared by lawyers and gives practical information on many areas of law in British Columbia. Script 178 gives information only, not legal advice. If you have a legal problem or need legal advice, you should speak to a lawyer. For the name of a lawyer to consult, call the Lawyer Referral Service at 604.687.3221 in the lower mainland or 1.800.663.1919 elsewhere in British Columbia.

This script discusses your duties as an executor under a will and what you have to do to probate an estate.

What does it mean to probate an estate?

Probate is the process of getting the court to rule that a will is legally valid. With some exceptions, the estate consists of any land, house, money, investments, personal items and other assets that the deceased owned. The person who died and made the will is called the “testator”.

What is an executor, and what does the executor do?

The executor is named in a will, in general, the executor gathers up the estate assets, pays the deceased’s debts, and divides what remains of the deceased’s estate among the beneficiaries.

How do you confirm that you were named as the executor?

You need to get the original version of the will to check this. If it’s not at the deceased testator’s home, the will may be in a safety deposit box, at the office of the lawyer who drafted the will, or it may be found by a search with the Vital Statistics Agency.

To look in the safety deposit box, phone the bank and make an appointment. Take the key, a death certificate and your own identification. If the will is there and names you as executor, the bank will let you take the will. You and a bank employee will then list the contents of the safety deposit box. You need to keep a copy of that list.

The other thing you can do is search for a wills notice at the Vital Statistics Agency. The testator or the testator’s lawyer may have registered a wills notice with Vital Statistics. This notice tells where the testator planned to keep the original will. If a wills notice was registered, you’ll be able to locate and obtain the original version of the will and confirm that you were named as the executor. For the Vital Statistics Agency office closest to you, call 250.952.2681 or check the Vital Statistics website at www.vs.gov.bc.ca.

Decide if you want to be the executor

If you haven’t yet dealt with any of the estate assets, you cannot be made to act as the executor. Acting as an executor can be very challenging, and you should only take on this responsibility knowing that the task will be time-consuming and stressful. Once you begin the process of dealing with the estate assets, you’re legally bound to complete the job, and you can only be relieved of your responsibility by a court order.

Consider hiring a lawyer

If you decide to act as the executor, consider whether to hire a lawyer to do the paperwork and advise you of your obligations. If you do, the estate pays the lawyer’s fees. Ask the lawyer how the legal fees will be calculated, whether as a percentage of the estate or on an hourly basis. But because unexpected matters often arise in estates, it may not be possible to get an exact estimate of the fees. It’s a good idea to hire a lawyer for any estate involving the distribution of assets through a will, where a grant of probate is required. For most estates, it’s also a good idea to also hire an accountant to help with the several tax returns that need to be filed, as proper filing of returns and payment of taxes is one of the executor’s responsibilities.

Your first decision as executor may be about funeral arrangements

The funeral is your responsibility, although you’ll want to consider the wishes of the deceased person and their relatives. The funeral parlor will ordinarily order you copies of the death certificate. You may take the funeral bills to the bank where the deceased kept an account. If there’s enough money in the account, the bank will give you a cheque from that account to pay the expenses.

You must also confirm that the will is the deceased’s last will

You can confirm this by checking with the Vital Statistics Agency at the office closest to you. Most lawyers send a wills notice to Vital Statistics for every will they prepare. Vital Statistics will then send you a Certificate of Wills Search. This tells you if there’s a record of the will and where the will is kept. You need this certificate when you apply to the court for probate, if you can’t find the original will, the search results may help you locate it.

Cancel charge cards and protect the estate

You should cancel ail the deceased person’s charge accounts and subscriptions. Also ensure that the estate is protected. Make sure valuables are safe and that sufficient insurance is in place. You should immediately change the locks on the apartment or house, and put any valuable things into storage. As for insurance, most insurance policies are cancelled automatically if a house is vacant for more than 30 days, so ask the insurance agent about a “vacancy permit.”

All potential beneficiaries must be notified

The Supreme Court Civil Rules and the new Wilis, Estates and Succession Act (WESA) require that all beneficiaries (as well as certain family members who would be heirs if there was no will, or who are eligible to apply to the court to change the will) must be given a written notice, plus a copy of the will. This is generally done by the estate’s lawyer.

The next step is to prepare and submit the necessary probate documents

The probate documents are submitted to court to get probate. Usually, you must get probate of the will to handle the deceased’s estate. You’ll also have to pay the probate fees as assessed by the court registry. The deceased’s bank will usually allow you to take these funds out of the deceased’s account.

Be aware that you don’t always have to apply for probate

It depends on the type of assets in the estate. Certain assets can be passed down without requiring probate. Land owned in joint tenancy with another person doesn’t require probate. If the deceased person owned land or a house in joint tenancy with another person, you only have to file an application in the Land Titles Office along with the death certificate. This will register the land in the name of the surviving joint tenant.

Also, probate isn’t required for joint bank accounts or vehicles owned jointly. Again, the death certificate is usually sufficient to transfer these to the surviving joint owner.

In addition, RRSPs and insurance policies, which typically name a beneficiary to receive the proceeds in case of the person’s death, aren’t considered part of the estate, and therefore don’t require probate. You should give the death certificate to any insurance companies and RRSP administrators that the deceased person had plans with.

They’ll want the death certificate before paying money to a beneficiary.

What about stocks and bonds?

If the estate includes securities, such as stocks and bonds, you may have to apply for probate in order to transfer them. You should check with the financial institution or transfer agent involved for each security in the estate because they’ll have different requirements.

Also deal with any pensions the deceased had

If the deceased paid into the Canada Pension Plan, immediately apply to your local CPP office to tell them of the death and obtain any death, survivor or orphan benefits. Most funeral directors can provide you with information and forms regarding CPP death benefits. You should also check with the deceased person’s employer about any benefits available there. If the deceased was receiving an old age security pension or other pensions, you also need to tell those pension offices of the death. Note that any CPP or old age security cheques for the month after the month in which the person died must be returned uncashed.

Certain income tax returns must be filed, and income tax may have to be paid

You need to file tax returns for any years for which the deceased didn’t file a return. If the estate made any income after the date of death (such as rental income or interest on.bank accounts), then tax returns will have to be filed for the estate for each year after death, until the estate is wound up or paid out. The estate must pay taxes and obtain a Clearance Certificate from Revenue Canada before the estate can be distributed to the beneficiaries. This certificate confirms that all income taxes or fees of the estate are paid. This is an important step because the tax department can potentially impose taxes that you don’t know about.

Now you can pay the estate’s debts

Depending on the circumstances, you may want to advertise for possible creditors so you can make sure all legitimate debts are paid. This is to protect yourself against creditor claims that arise after you distribute the estate. As the executor, you could be personally liable if you don’t pay the deceased’s debts, includig any taxes owed, before you distribute the estate. You should talk to a lawyer about this.

Be aware of the WiUs Variation Act

The Wills Variation Act allows any child or spouse of the deceased to apply to the court to vary or change the terms of the will. This Act has a six-month deadline (starting from the granting of probate). You should wait for six months to distribute the assets or obtain releases from each potential claimant. Remember that you are responsible if you distribute the assets to the wrong people and could be sued.

Get tax clearance

It’s wise to obtain a tax clearance certificate from the Canada Revenue Agency. This certificate confirms that all income taxes or fees of the estate are paid. This is an important step because the tax department can potentially impose taxes that you don’t know about.

Finally, you’re ready to distribute the estate to the beneficiaries

But before distributing the assets as directed in the will, you should submit a full accounting of the estate’s financial activities and obtain a release from each beneficiary. Your accounting will usually include a claim for reimbursement of expenses you’ve paid yourself. You’ll have to decide if you also want to claim a fee for acting as executor. This fee can be up to 5% of the estate and is taxable income. If you want to claim a fee, the amount you claim should be included in the accounting that you send to the beneficiaries.

Where can you find more information?

• See the booklet “Being an Executor” produced by the People’s Law School, available online through Clicklaw. -at www.clicklaw.bc.ca/resource/1022.

•     Also see the BC Ministry of Justice’s website on wills and estates at  www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/other/wills estates.htm. [updated April 2014]

Dial-A-Law© is a library of legal information that is available by:

•             phone, as recorded scripts, and

•             audio and text, on the CBA BC Branch website.

To access Dial-A-Law, call 604.687.4680 in the lower mainland or 1.800.565.5297 elsewhere in BC. Dial-A-Law is available online at www.dialalaw.org.

The Dial-A-Law library is prepared by lawyers and gives practical information on many areas of law in British Columbia. Dial-A-Law is funded by the Law Foundation of British Columbia and sponsored by the Canadian Bar Association, British Columbia Branch.

Executor/Trustees Fees

Executor/Trustees Fees

Zadra v Cortese 2016 BCSC 390 dealt with a passing of executor’s accounts before a registrar to determine the amount of executor/trustees fees for handling a complex estate for ten years but delegating most of the work to professionals.

The value of the estate increased from $800,000 to $4.8 million over this time due to the rise in the real estate market.

The registrar allowed fees of %3 of the gross estate, plus %3 of the estate’s income and a management fee of $12,000.

The executor had pre- taken fees of $70,000 but was not admonished for it as it was done in the belief that the executor was entitled to it.

The Court Stated:

41 Sections 88 and 89 of the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464, provide as follows:

88 (1) A trustee under a deed, settlement or will, an executor or administrator, a guardian appointed by any court, a testamentary guardian, or any other trustee, however the trust is created, is entitled to, and it is lawful for the Supreme Court, or a registrar of that court if so directed by the court, to allow him or her a fair and reasonable allowance, not exceeding 5% on the gross aggregate value, including capital and income, of all the assets of the estate by way of remuneration for his or her care, pains and trouble and his or her time spent in and about the trusteeship, executorship, guardianship or administration of the estate and effects vested in him or her under any will or grant of administration, and in administering, disposing of and arranging and settling the same, and generally in arranging and settling the affairs of the estate as the court, or a registrar of the court if so directed by the court thinks proper.

(2) The court or a registrar of the court if so directed by the court, may make an order under subsection (1) from time to time, and the amount of remuneration must be allowed to an executor, trustee, guardian or administrator, in passing his or her accounts, in addition to any other allowances for expenses actually incurred to which the trustee, executor, guardian or administrator may by law be entitled.

(3) A person entitled to an allowance under subsection (1) may apply annually to the Supreme Court for a care and management fee and the court may allow a fee not exceeding 0.4% of the average market value of the assets.

89 The court may, on application to it for the purpose, settle or direct the registrar to settle the amount of the compensation, although the estate is not before the court in an action.

42 The administrator is entitled to remuneration for his work on the estate to a maximum of 5% of the gross aggregate value, including capital and income of all the assets of the estate at the date of passing, pursuant to s. 88(1) of the Trustee Act. The criteria to be considered in determining the amount of remuneration which should be awarded are set out in the much cited case of Toronto General Trusts Corp. v. Central Ontario Railway (1905), 6 O.W.R. 350 (Ont. H.C.) at para. 23wherein the Court states:

[23] From the American and Canadian precedents, based upon statutory provision for compensation to trustees, the following circumstances appear proper to be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation:
(1) the magnitude of the trust;

(2) the care and responsibility springing therefrom;

(3) the time occupied in performing its duties;

(4) the skill and ability displayed;

(5) the success which has attended its administration.

43 It is not required that remuneration be fixed at a specific percentage of the gross value of the estate, it can be calculated as a lump sum provided it does not exceed 5%. In Turley, Re (1955), 16 W.W.R. 72 (B.C. S.C.) at para. 11 the Court stated:

[11] As to grounds 1 and 2 of this application, I think the principles to be applied are well settled. I adopt the statement of the principles as given in, I think, all the cases and found in Re Atkinson Estate [1952] OR 688, that the compensation allowed an executor is to be a fair and reasonable allowance for his care, pains and trouble and his time expended in or about the estate. Both responsibility and actual work done are matters for consideration and, while there should not be a rigid adherence to fixed percentages, they are to be used as a guide. I think that the factors I mentioned in my judgment on the previous motion are found here. It is not only the presence of continuing trusts that makes the realization and administration of estates difficult. It is submitted that the capital fee should be charged only on the amount realized, excluding those assets that go over in specie. While the fact that considerable portions of the estate are transferred in specie is a factor the registrar may consider in settling the percentage he allows, I think it would be quite inappropriate as a rule to exclude these in the computation of aggregate value. There appears to be evidence here of extensive work. It is the duty of the executor to administer the whole of the estate. His work in some things might not be compensated sufficiently by a percentage much in excess of the maximum allowed.

44 Maximum remuneration is not awarded as a matter of routine. Appropriate remuneration is a matter of what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. As stated by the B.C.C.A, in Kanee Estate, Re [1991 CarswellBC 654 (B.C. C.A.)] (19 September 1991), Vancouver Registry CA014168:

Maximum remuneration does not go as a matter of course and it is to be expected that there will be disputes over the quantum of remuneration. Section 90(1) does not prescribe an adversarial process. There are no plaintiffs, no defendants, no pleadings, no discoveries, no provisions for offers of settlement or payment into Court, and no other trappings of an adversarial nature, All interested parties are entitled to be heard but in the end the officers of the Court must decide what is fair and reasonable in all of the circumstances.

45 The amount of remuneration to be paid to the administrator is determined on a quantum merit basis which reflects the reasonable value of the services rendered, which is subject to a 5% maximum.

46 In this regard, evidence is required concerning the administrator’s experience in estate matters, the nature of the estate, the tasks undertaken, the time spent, unusual problems arising during the administration of the estate, the skill employed by the administrator, and the results achieved which were directly attributable to the administrator’s efforts. Documentary evidence and time records should be provided where they exist. The administrator provided this evidence over the course of days of testimony. In addition, extensive documentary evidence was provided by both the administrator and the beneficiaries. However, no time records were provided, as the administrator did not keep a record in this regard.

47 An inference may be drawn against an administrator for failure to provide time records in appropriate circumstances. See Lowe Estate, Re, 2002 BCSC 813 (B.C. S.C.) at para. 33.

48 A negative inference in this regard will be appropriate where criticisms in the administrator’s administration of the estate are found to be valid. In these circumstances, the administrator’s remuneration may be substantially reduced. See Lowe Estate, Re , supra, at paras. 27, 28, 41 and 42.

Joint Account Holders Are Fiduciaries

Joint Account Holders Are Fiduciaries

MacKay v. MacKay Estate,2015 ONSC 7429, held that one joint account holder may serve as a fiduciary in relation to the other simply via the traditional indicia of such a relationship as set out in Frame v. Smith, [1987] 2 SCR 99 (i.e., the ability by the fiduciary to exercise unilateral control over the beneficiary’s interests; the vulnerability of the beneficiary).

In MacKay, supra, the defendant daughter-in-law had been added as a joint account holder to her mother-in-law’s account in order to help her with her day-to-day finances; this occurred while the mother-in-law retained capacity. The daughter-in-law did not hold power of attorney. She was her mother-in-law’s main caregiver, emotional support and confidante. In her capacity as joint account holder, in addition to covering the mother-in-law’s expenses, she paid herself a modest weekly sum in compensation for her services. The son (ex-husband of the daughter-in-law at the time of litigation), who held power of attorney for his mother, brought an action against his ex-wife seeking an accounting and repayment of the funds in question.

The court held that the daughter-in-law had a fiduciary obligation to her mother-in-law in her management and operation of the joint bank account, but that she had not breached her duty; her payments to herself were reasonable in the circumstances.

The holding in MacKay underscores the principle that the prima facie nature of a joint account—that is, of its being equally owned and equally subject to the discretion of all account holders—will give way, in some circumstances, before deeper considerations of equity.

In some respects MacKay stands for this proposition more strenuously than Pecore itself, as the former is less reliant on traditional doctrines concerning gifts and donors’ intentions. MacKay does not treat the nature of a joint account as an either/or proposition by which either a gift or trust is created. Rather, MacKay concerns itself solely with the question of fiduciary obligations, specifically as they may arise in the context of a “typical” joint account where one party is vulnerable to the discretion of the other.

Signing a Trustee Release

Signing a Trustee Release

Anyone practicing law in wills and estates, or who has inherited monies, will be familiar with being required to sign a Trustee Release before the funds are disbursed to the beneficiaries.

In BC, it is simply the way business is conducted, and it saves a great deal of time and expense by not forcing the executor/trustee to pass accounts firstly before distributing the assets.

Thus I was somewhat surprised to read the following extract from Bronson v Hewitt 2010 BCSC 169:

The Trustee’s entitlement to demand a release does not arise for the first time in this action. The first reported case dates back to 1845. In Chadwick v. Heatley (1845) S.C. 2 Col. 137, 63 E.R. 671, the trustee sought to distribute trust funds to surviving beneficiaries. He offered a general release as a condition to the payment which the plaintiff refused to sign. The court concluded the trustee did not have the right to insist on having the release executed.

[655] In King v. Mullins (1852), 61 E.R. 469, the court held that although it was usual practice to give a release in order to discharge a trustee, a trustee paying in accordance with the letter of the trust has no right to require a release.

[656] In Brighter v. Brighter Estates, [1998] O.J. No. 3144 (Ct. J. (Gen. Div.)), the court was most critical of the executor requiring a release. The court said at para. 9:
… An executor’s duty is to carry out the instructions contained in the will … [T]he executor has no right to hold any portion of the distributable assets hostage in order to extort from a beneficiary an approval or release of the executor’s performance of duties as trustee, or the executor’s compensation or fee. It is quite proper for an executor (or trustee, to use the current expression) to accompany payment with a release which the beneficiary is requested to execute. But it is quite another matter for the trustee to require execution of the release before making payment; that is manifestly improper.

[657] In Rooney Estate v. Stewart Estate, [2007] O.J. No. 3944 (Sup. Ct. J.) the court noted at para. 39: “[t]he manner of sending the release first and the cheque later suggests the “beneficiary was held hostage for the release.”

[658] In spite of the judicial criticism, a review of British Columbia practice manuals and Continuing Legal Education (“CLE”) publications suggests that it is a common practice to seek a release prior to distribution: R.C. DiBella, Wills and Estate Planning Basics – How to Administer an Estate from Collecting the Assets to Paying Accounts, Materials prepared for CLE Seminar, Vancouver, B.C., October 2006; Gabrielle Komorowska, Guide to Wills and Estates, British Columbia ed. (Gibsons: Evin Ross Publications 1996); British Columbia Probate and Estate Administration Practice Manual, vol. 2, 2d ed. (Vancouver: CLE BC, 2007).

[659] The alternative to obtaining a release is for the trustee to pass his accounts. The passing of accounts will release a trustee from future obligations. For a trustee to request a release of future claims is not in itself objectionable. In this case, however, the proffered document seeks not only a release of future claims but also that the beneficiaries indemnify and hold harmless Howard from any claims arising subsequent to September 30, 2002. A request for an indemnity and hold harmless agreement goes well beyond the type of release referenced in the B.C. practice manuals. In addition, the Distribution Letter suggests that the beneficiaries must sign the Release before any cheque will be forthcoming.

[660] While a request for a release and indemnity in that form may be objectionable, it does not in the first instance create any loss or damage. If all of the beneficiaries had been prepared to sign the Release, matters would have been resolved. They, of course, were not.

[661] What happened subsequently is a matter of greater concern. That signing the Release was a condition of being paid became clear when only those who signed the Release were paid. Under the terms of the trust, distributions were to be made equally. That did not happen. Only those who signed the Release got paid.

[662] The submission that the trustee was entitled to pay certain beneficiaries and accumulate for others is, with respect, untenable. It is contrary to the terms of the BNT Trust Agreement. Further, it is clear that the trustee was not in this case exercising a good faith discretion in accumulating for some beneficiaries and paying others. The only reason the plaintiff beneficiaries were not paid was because they were not prepared to sign the Release, a document that the trustee was not entitled to demand.

[663] By paying certain beneficiaries and not others, Howard breached the terms of the BNT. As soon as Howard paid certain beneficiaries, he was legally obliged to pay the others, regardless of whether or not they were prepared to sign the Release. Although he may have been entitled to hold all of the funds pending a passing of accounts, what he could not do, given the terms of this trust, was to pay some beneficiaries and not others.

[664] It is a principle of equity that equity will not suffer a wrong to be done without a remedy: John McGhee, Snell’s Equity, 31st ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2005).

Executor Cannot Use Estate Funds To Defend Personally

Executor Cannot Use Estate Funds To Defend Personally

In a Wills variation claim (now section 60, WESA) an executor cannot use estate funds to defend him or herself if a beneficiary, and may  use reasonable estate  funds to defend the claim but only in the capacity of executor and not beneficiary.

In a wills variation claim the executor cannot use estate funds to defend his personal interests.

The executor may have his reasonable legal fees paid in his role as executor but should have separate counsel in most cases and the fees should be kept to a minimum–typically for advising on estate developments, liabilities and assets.

Generally, the executor is required to play a neutral role in litigation, and as a result of having to play a neutral role, the executor is generally entitled to special costs from estate.

But when the executor is also a beneficiary the costs must be separated.

If one counsel acts for the executor in both the capacity of executor and personal beneficiary, then the legal fees must be apportioned between the two separate roles, with the estate paying only for the role of executor. Wilcox v Wilcox 2002 BCCA 574.

Steernberg v. Steernberg Estate (2007), 33 E.T.R. (3d) 78, 74 B.C.L.R. (4th) 126, 40 R.F.L. (6th) 106, 2007 BCSC 953, 2007 CarswellBC 1533, Martinson J. (B.C. S.C.); additional reasons to (2006), 2006 CarswellBC 2751, 32 R.F.L. (6th) 62, 28 E.T.R. (3d) 1, 2006 BCSC 1672, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2925, D. Martinson J. (B.C.S.C.)  is one of my favourite cases, primarily for the reason in the headnote.

Prior to this case, it was not uncommon for defendants to routinely use estate funds in the hope of depriving a plaintiff of sufficient resources to continue the fight.

Steernberg levels the playing field by making each party pay for their own legal costs as the litigation proceeds, save for the executor, who must remain neutral in the litigation.

Here are the facts of Steernberg:

The Wife, husband’s son, husband’s three daughters and husband’s brother-in-law were beneficiaries under husband’s will.

The Plaintiff wife challenged husband’s will–husband’s son was the executor of the will.

An offer to settle made under R. 37 of Rules of Court, 1990 was signed by son as executor and the other four beneficiaries, but not on behalf of son in his personal capacity as beneficiary.

Legal fees for defendant’ litigation counsel of $148,250.62 and legal fees of counsel for executor of $72,895.24 were deducted before net values of estate were calculated.

Shortly after the trial ended and before reasons for judgment were issued, the estate paid defendants’ litigation counsel’s invoice of $60,700.

None of these payments were made or recorded with the wife’s consent and no funds from estate were made available to the wife before, during or after trial for her legal fees.

During the trial, the wife raised the concern that the defendants took substantial sums of money out of estate for legal fees to defend action before the trial started.

The parties agreed that the issue would be decided after the court gave its decision on whether will should be varied.

It was inappropriate to withdraw funds from estate at start of litigation, or throughout the course of litigation to fund defence of Wills Variation Act claim in the absence of a court order or unanimous agreement of beneficiaries

In a Wills Variation Act (S. 60 WESA) claim the validity of will itself was not being challenged and there was no need for the executor to “defend” will

The son was not entitled, in his neutral role as executor, to make a R. 37 offer and he did not join in the offer in his personal capacity as a beneficiary.

It was not an offer made on behalf of all persons beneficially interested in the assets of the estate and hence would not be binding on the estate.

The losing beneficiaries must pay the wife’s costs personally, not out of the estate.

It was directed that the executor pass his accounts before a registrar and that the registrar inquire into and make recommendations with respect to the net value of the estate after taking into account appropriate legal fees and income that ought to have been earned on the funds had they remained invested.

Executor Removed For Delay and Disdain

Executor Removed For Delay and Disdain

Re Dirnberger Estate 2016 BCSC 439 removed an executor who had failed to settle and distribute a simple estate for more than four years and showed disdain and hostility towards his sister the other  major beneficiary.

The delay and behavior constituted an inability to act due to constant unaccountable hostility towards the other  beneficiary was a want of reasonable fidelity resulting in the removal of the executor and his replacement by the beneficiary. The executor had further failed to retain professional advisors that were necessary for the estate.

The Law: Removal of Executors/Trustees

[9]           The legal principles surrounding removal of a trustee are not in dispute. The court has the power under the Trustee Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 464, to remove a trustee. The court also has such power under its inherent jurisdiction: Morelli v. Morelli, 2014 BCSC 106 (CanLII) at para. 29.

[10]        The court will remove a trustee where the welfare of the beneficiaries requires it. The existence of friction between the trustee and one or more beneficiaries is usually not sufficient, of itself, to justify removal of the trustee: Erlichman v. Erlichman, 2000 BCSC 173 (CanLII) at para. 8.

[11]        There are four categories of conduct on an executor’s part that will warrant removal:

1.         endangerment of the trust property;

2.         want of honesty;

3.         want of proper capacity to execute the duties; and

4.         want of reasonable fidelity.

[Conroy v. Stokes, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 124 (B.C.C.A.)]

[12]        The applicant relies on the first, third and fourth of these categories. The applicant takes issue with Mr. Chase’s failure to wrap up and distribute the estate at this late date and his “unaccountable and hostile behaviour towards Ms. Dirnberger”.

[13]        The duty of an executor is to settle the affairs of the deceased and to distribute the estate in accordance with the terms of the will in a timely manner. Mr. Chase has failed to do this.

[14]        I have concluded that Mr. Chase must be removed as trustee. I have reached this conclusion for two reasons. His actions demonstrate that he lacks the necessary capacity to act as trustee. I do not mean that he lacks legal capacity but rather that he has demonstrated an inability to perform his duties as administrator of the estate: see Figley v. Figley, 2012 SKCA 36 (CanLII) at para. 49, and Estate of Forbes McTavish Campbell, 2015 BCSC 774 (CanLII) at para. 18. There is as well a want of reasonable fidelity.

[15]        With regards to the first reason, this is a simple estate that has not been distributed more than four years after probate.

[16]        In Levi-Bandel v. McKeen, 2011 BCSC 247 (CanLII), Justice Butler stated at paras. 21 and 23:

[21]      … it is not only an act of misconduct that can be grounds for removal of a trustee. A failure to act can amount to grounds for removal ….

…

[23]      … I have little difficulty in concluding that [the executor’s] inaction and her intransigence caused unnecessary delay. Her refusal or reluctance to proceed with the administration of the estate amounts to a want of reasonable fidelity and a failure to carry out her duties.

[27]        I appreciate that Mr. Chase has never acted as an executor before. But inexperience is not a licence to delay for more than four years the distribution of the estate. In Stolarchuk Estate (Re), 2011 BCSC 168 (CanLII), Master Bouck aptly notes at para. 61:

…Nonetheless, inexperience does not excuse the four to five year delay in dealing with the Properties in an appropriate manner. The executor’s duty was to obtain the best possible result from the realization of assets and ensure a timely distribution of the Estate residue to all Beneficiaries.

Passing Over: Removing An Executor

Passing Over: Removing An Executor

Special circumstances sometimes occur where it is appropriate for the Court to Pass Over the named executor in favour of another  which effectively removes the named executor

In Re Thomasson Estate, 2011 BCSC 481 the court Passed over the named executor by reason of personal conflict of interest.

The Court stated:

[28]         The application is not to remove Alex as an executor but simply to pass over him so that an enquiry can be undertaken of the transfer of the Property to him and his wife by the deceased in 2006, and a determination can be made if any further actions need be taken in regards to the Property.

[29]         In the circumstances of this case, it is my opinion that there is a perceived conflict of interest between Alex in his role as an executor and his interest in his personal capacity. If an action is instituted by the executors as a result of the transfer of the Property, it would be against Alex. In my opinion, Alex, in his capacity as executor, cannot attack the transfer of the Property to himself while at the same time maintaining, in his personal capacity, that the transfer of the Property was proper. By making such a finding I am not prejudging the case. I am simply of the view that, in the circumstances of this case, if an action is commenced as a result of the enquiries into the transfer, Alex cannot conscientiously act as a plaintiff in his capacity as an executor in a case where he will be the defendant.

Many cases have stated that the right of a testator to nominate the executor to administer his estate should not be lightly interfered with. (see Re Agnew Estate (1941) 3 W.W.R.723) That case also stated that, apart from statute, a court of probate had no right to refuse probate to an executor named in a will unless he was legally incompetent to act.

Ill will or animosity displayed between the parties is in itself not a sufficient ground to pass over an executor.

In Mortimer on Probate 2nd ed., p.209, the learned author states: “Where a will has been made, and an executor appointed, “the court cannot exercise any discretion as to granting or refusing probate. If probate is refused, it must be on the ground of some legal disability, recognized and allowed by the common law. For an executor is but a trustee for the deceased, and such person as the testator thought proper to appoint for that office, without any previous qualification; nobody can add qualifications to him other than those which the testator has imposed, but he shall be who, and in what manner, the testator shall judge proper”.

In Re Wolfe Estate, 21 W.W.R. 85, B.C.C.A., the court held that under Section 92 of the Trustee Act, it is within the judicial discretion of the Supreme Court or judge thereof to appoint a judicial trustee before the grant of letters probate or letters of administration in place of an executor or person entitled to administration.

Re Haggerty Estate, 60 W.W.R. 574 held that Section 9 of the Estate Administration Act confers a limited and unusual discretion on a court to pass over a named executor “by reason of special circumstances”.

In that case a grant was refused where the named executor had within the last year been convicted of a crime involving misappropriation of estate funds. The court stated that while a testator’s choice of executor should not be lightly interfered with, this was a proper case where discretion should be exercised by refusing the grant to the named executor. The court discussed a long line of authorities that evidence of bad character alone is not a sufficient ground for refusing a grant.

In fact, in Re Oughton, 40 E.T.R. 296, the notorious sex offender Oughton who was sentenced to an indeterminate sentence was not passed over as executor, on the basis that his circumstances were not sufficient to justify passing him over.

In Stadelmier vs Hoffman 25 E.T.R. 174 however, the court passed over one of four named executors, where the other three intended to bring action against the fourth on the basis of undue influence with respect to some large inter vivos gifts. The court exercised its discretion to pass over due to the position of actual conflict that the fourth executor was in. He could not in his capacity of executor attack the gift to himself, while at the same time maintain in his personal capacity that the gifts were proper.