Statute Barred Debt to Estate Deducted From Beneficiary

Statute Barred Debt to Estate Deducted From Beneficiary

Re Johnston Estate 2017 BCSC 272 upheld the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee  which provides that where a legatee of a share of the residue is a debtor of the estate, he or she is not entitled to receive his or her legacy without bringing his or her debt into account, even though the debt owed by the beneficiary in that case was 43 years old and was statute barred.

The rule derives from the case of Cherry v. Boultbee (1839), 4 My. & Cr. 442. It is an equitable principle designed to ensure fairness.

The purpose of the rule was to prevent a beneficiary who owed money to an estate from receiving more than his or her fair share of the estate.

In the case of Re: Akerman, Akerman v. Akerman, [1891] 3 Ch. 212, Kekewich J. stated:

A person who owes an estate money, that is to say, who is bound to increase the general mass of the estate by contribution of his own, cannot claim an aliquot share given to him out of that mass without first making the contribution which completes it. Nothing is in truth retained by the representative of the estate; nothing is in strict language set off; but the contributor is paid by holding in his own hand a part of the mass, which, if the mass were completed, he would receive back.

29      The rule has been held to apply even where the debt is statute-barred: see Re: Akerman.

30      The applicant submits that the rule continues to apply in Canada and relies on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada Trust Company v. Lloyd et al, [1968] S.C.R. 300.

In that case, the Supreme Court applied the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee in finding that the contribution of three directors who had improperly withdrawn funds from the company some 43 years earlier, had to be taken into account in the distribution of the residue by the receiver. The court noted that the situation was analogous to that of a “legatee who must bring into account even a statute barred debt before he can claim a legacy left to him in the testator’s will”.

31      The applicant also relies on a more recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Olympia & York Developments Ltd. v. Royal Trust Co. (1993), 103 D.L.R. (4th) 129, where the court confirmed that the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee has been accepted in Canadian decisions and, where appropriate, applied.

The rule in Cherry v. Boultbee does not confer on the estate any right to recoup the amount owing but rather operates to ensure fairness in the distribution of an estate, recognizing that the relationship between a testator and his or her beneficiaries is typically not at arm’s length. The fundamental purpose of the rule is to ensure that beneficiaries are treated fairly and it embodies the principal that he who seeks equity must do equity. As the court noted in Re: Akerman, nothing is being retained by the representative and nothing is being set off but rather, the contributor is paid by what he is holding in his own hand.

The court in Re: Goy & Co Ltd., [1900] 2 Ch. 149, also noted that the claimant has in his own hands that which is applicable to the payment and should pay himself out of that. The question of whether the testator or the estate can recover the debt or whether the debt is statute barred is therefore largely irrelevant to the application of the rule. In my view, the change in approach to limitation provisions by the Supreme Court of Canada in Tolofson does not affect the application of the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee.

37      The decision of the Yukon Territory Court of Appeal in Leeper Estate makes it clear that the rule in Cherry v. Boultbee continues to apply in Canada.

39      The Estate of William Leonide Johnston is, however, entitled to retain and deduct from the share of the estate otherwise payable to the respondent an amount on account of the debt owed to the Estate of William Johnston by the respondent that was outstanding and owing on his death.

Disinternment aka Exhumation

Disinternment aka Exhumation

Disinternment , also known as exhumation of human remains is provided in the provision of the Cremation, Internment and Funeral Services Act SBC 1974.

At common law a duty is imposed upon an executor to see that the deceased is buried in a manner befitting his or her station in life Schara Tzadeck v Royal Trust Co. ( 1952) 4 DLR 529 (SCC)

Exhumation of human remains is not that common and most people have likely only heard of its occurrence as a result of a police suspicion of foul play or to obtain DNA.

However, exhumation  does occur occasionally in estate litigation, particularly when there are divisive factors amongst the family as to the proper religious procedure for handling a loved one’s remains.
Re Popp Estate 2001 BCSC 183 was such a case where the court investigated the circumstances of the disposal of a husband’s wife’s remains and declared that his conduct was capricious in the sense of being irregular or unpredictable, and found it was appropriate for the court to intervene and direct that her remains be disinterred and her urn ashes placed in columbarium.
The husband had placed his wife’s earn in his mother’s grave, with no plaque or headstone on the grave recognizing the fact that the deceased was buried there.
The husband  stated that upon his father’s death, he would then remove his wife’s urn from the grave, but that he did not have any plans as to the urns ultimate disposal.
The remaining family members sought an order that the remains be disinterred.
Even though the husband was as executor responsible for disposing of her remains, the court found that the rights of other relatives of the deceased should also be determined when inquiring as to whether the husband’s actions involved a capricious change of mind.

Intervention by the Court

17  (1) A person claiming an interest in an exhumation or a disinterment may apply to the Supreme Court for an order to allow or restrain the exhumation or disinterment.

(2) When hearing an application under subsection (1), the Supreme Court must have regard to the rights of all persons having an interest and, without limitation, must consider

(a) the feelings of those related to or associated with the deceased, with particular regard to the feelings of the spouse of the deceased,

(b) the rules, practice and beliefs respecting exhumation and disinterment followed or held by people of the religious faith of the deceased if the cemetery or mausoleum in which the deceased is interred is operated by a religious denomination or religious corporation,

(c) any terms and conditions respecting exhumation or disinterment contained in a contract for the interment of the deceased,

(d) any reasonable directions given by the deceased respecting interment, and

(e) whether the request for exhumation or disinterment involves family hostility or a capricious change of mind respecting the exhumation or disinterment of the deceased.

Executor Can Waive Solicitor Client Privilege

Executor Can Waive Solicitor Client Privilege

Haas Estate v Jane Doe 2017 BCSC 12 confirmed that an executor( personal representative ) of an estate can waive any solicitor client privilege that existed prior to the deceased’s passing.

Mr. Haas died on February 15, 2016, leaving a will naming his only child, the plaintiff, Brigitte Marga Anne Stapleton, as his executor and sole beneficiary of his estate. 

2      Approximately four months before he died, Mr. Haas purchased an insurance contract for a premium of $100,000 and named the plaintiff as the beneficiary. However, approximately two months before his death, Mr. Haas changed the beneficiary designation on the insurance policy to a party or parties unknown  ( thus Jane Doe as a defendant). Around the same time, he consulted with a solicitor, Ms. Kirsten Okimaw, with regard to estate planning matters. No new will was prepared.

The application was whether the plaintiff was entitled to a copy of the solicitor’s file. The solicitor has thus far refused to turn over the file based upon advice she has received from a practise advisor with the Law Society of British Columbia that the file is or may be protected by solicitor-client privilege 

s. 142(1) of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, which states :

142(1) A personal representative has the same authority over the estate in respect of which the personal representative is appointed as the deceased person would have if living, subject to

(a) a contrary intention appearing in the will of the deceased person, and

(b) this or any other enactment. 

15      The “wills exception” cases are those where the solicitor who took instructions and drafted the will was required to give evidence regarding communications and instructions between solicitor and client where the execution, contents or validity of the will were in issue, despite there being no waiver of privilege. The plaintiff refers to authorities where the wills exception has been expanded to include analogous transactions such as the creation of a trust (Geffen v. Goodman Estate, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 353), and production of an estate planning file where the deceased had transferred two pieces of property prior to his death (Kreeft v. Kreeft Estate, September 18, 2006, Kelowna Registry No. S64537). Courts have drawn a distinction between those cases where production of a solicitor’s file is sought to aid in the determination of the validity or interpretation of the will on one hand and an attempt to attack or vary the will where the intentions are clear and manifest on the face of the will on the other. 

24      One case which addressed the question directly was Hicks Estate v. Hicks, [1987] O.J. No. 1426. The parties to the action were relatives of the deceased, and at issue in the claim was whether certain transfers of property were valid. The plaintiff was the personal representative of the deceased who brought an application for production of the files of the deceased’s former solicitors. Stortini D.C.J. stated the issue succinctly at para. 12:

The privilege can be waived or lost by the client. In our case the client is dead. Who, therefore, is the repository of the privilege?

25      He then went on to answer his own question as follows at para. 15:

15. It is clear, therefore, that the privilege reposes in the personal representative of the deceased client who in this case is the plaintiff, the administrator of the estate of Mildred Hicks. The plaintiff can waive the privilege and call for disclosure of any material that the client, if living, would have been entitled to from the two solicitors.

26      A British Columbia case that addressed the rights of a personal representative to waive privilege is Romans Estate v. Tassone, 2009 BCSC 194, which involved the estate of an elderly man who shortly before his death transferred two assets to a friend and named his much younger caregiver as the executor and sole beneficiary in his will. The executor commenced an action against the deceased’s friend to set aside the conveyances and an applied for production of the conveyancing solicitor’s files. The named executor had not been granted probate as at the date of the application and her entitlement to probate was in dispute. The deceased’s former solicitor asserted privilege over the conveyance files. Savage J. held that the solicitor had properly refused to disclose the files and that it was appropriate that the executor prove her authority by producing letters of probate first. At para. 40, Savage J. held the following:

40. The authorities in my view make several matters clear: (1) an action can be commenced without obtaining probate, as an executor’s authority is based on the will, (2) before proceeding with an action already commenced, the parties to an action may require that the Plaintiff prove their authority by producing letters probate, (3) the court may require that a Plaintiff prove their authority, by producing letters probate, of its own motion, when appropriate and (4) the court may order a stay of proceedings any time after the commencement of an action where it is in the interests of justice to do so, pending the issuance of letters probate.

27      While the question does not appear to have been a matter of dispute, Savage J. at para. 41, confirmed that the solicitor-client privilege vests in the personal representative

Joint Bank Holder Not Liable For Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Joint Bank Holder Not Liable For Breach of Fiduciary Duty

No specific terms of payment were ever agreed between the parties and the defendant was paid the sum of $37,850 over approximately 5 years.

No evidence of mental incapacity was led at trial, although the deceased estate did become incompetent at some point during those years.
The court dismissed the claim as it found there was a loose family agreement that monies  charged to manage to account and that the payments were reasonable under the circumstances.

The Court Reviewed the Law of Fiduciary Duty

[29] . Fiduciary duties can arise without formal appointment as attorney, executor or trustee.[1]

[30]  Fiduciary relationships may arise depending on the nature and evolution of the relationship and the tasks undertaken in furtherance of that relationship.[2] As noted by Justice Wilson of the Supreme Court of Canada in Frame v. Smith (1987) 2 SCR 99 at 136, the following indicia has been accepted as a “rough and ready” guide to assist with the determination of whether a fiduciary relationship exists:

i.           The fiduciary has scope for the exercise of some discretion or power;

ii.         The fiduciary can unilaterally exercise that power or discretion so as to affect the beneficiary’s legal or practical interests;

iii.        The beneficiary is vulnerable to or at the mercy of the fiduciary holding the discretion or power.

[29]  Fiduciaries are burdened with responsibilities including the duty to act in the best interests of the person to whom they are bound to protect. Fiduciaries are required to vigilantly avoid any conflict between their own personal interests and their duties as fiduciaries.

[30]  At common law and in equity the general rule is that fiduciaries are not entitled to benefit from their appointment. ( Waters on Trusts)

However, this rule is not an absolute prohibition on activities that present a conflict of interest and duty. In the present case Annie had the right to request that Dawn provide care and companionship to her in exchange for compensation. Annie was entitled to organize her finances and personal services as she saw fit. The application of the rule of equity arises as follows: once the court has found a conflict between personal interest and duty the question arises as to whether there was consent to the activity. In this case the question is whether Annie or her attorney provided consent to the payments for personal services.

Funeral Service

Funeral Service

It is surprisingly common for loved ones of a deceased person to argue or even litigate over the funeral service and disposition of the remains of a deceased person.

One of the leading cases in BC is Kartsonas v Kartsonas Estate 2010 BCCA 336 where the children of the deceased and a niece had joint custody of the deceased’s funeral.

The children wanted a religious service and the niece disagreed arguing the deceased was an atheist at the time of his death.

The children succeeded at both the Supreme Court and the Curt of Appeal whom ordered that the children have responsibility for the funeral and disposition of his remains. 

Section 5(1) of the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, S.B.C. 2004, c. 35, sets out the order of priority of persons to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person.

The first priority is given to the personal representative named in the will of the deceased.

The next following priorities are given to the spouse of the deceased and the adult children of the deceased.

Section 5(4) of the Act authorizes an application to be made by a person claiming that he or she should be given the sole right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person, a s. 5(6) provides that if such an applicant is successful, he or she is deemed to be at the top of the order of priority

Section 5(5) of the Act provides direction to the court in hearing an application under s 5(4). It reads as follows:

(5) When hearing an application under subsection (4), the Supreme Court must have regard to the rights of all persons having an interest and, without limitation, give consideration to

(a) the feelings of those related to, or associated with, the deceased, giving particular regard to the spouse of the deceased,

(b) the rules, practice and beliefs respecting disposition of human remains and cremated remains followed or held by people of the religious faith of the deceased,

(c) any reasonable directions given by the deceased respecting the disposition of his or her human remains or cremated remains, and

(d) whether the dispute that is the subject of the application involves family hostility or a capricious change of mind respecting the disposition of the human remains or cremated remains.

11      Clause (c) of s. 5(5) provides that reasonable directions given by the deceased person are to be taken into account on an application under s. 5(4). However, I note that the deceased’s wishes are not determinative and are only one factor to be taken into account by the court.

The wishes of a deceased person as to the nature of his or her burial can be made binding on the person with conduct of the disposition of the deceased’s remains if they are expressed in his or her will or other document that complies with the requirements of s. 6 of the Act. In the present case, Mr. Kartsonas expressed a preference in his will and his representation agreement as to who should have conduct of the disposition of his remains but his preference for a non-religious funeral was not contained in a document complying with s. 6.

“Survive By Five Days”

"Survive By Five Days"

S  10 of WESA provides for when a person does not survive a deceased person by five (5) days or longer when provided for in an instrument(  ie a will) is conclusively deemed to have died before the deceased persona for all purposes and thus will not inherit.

Todoruk v BC Land Title and Survey Authority 2016 BCSC 2241 when a married couple of 67 years died when one died on January 12 and the other died on January 17.

The issue before the court was the interpretation of the words ” survive by five days.”

[2]          The calculation of time is addressed in the Interpretation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 238 [Acf. Sections 25(1), (4) and (5) say as follows:

(1) This section applies to an enactment and to a deed, conveyance or other legal instrument unless specifically provided otherwise in the deed,  conveyance or other legal instrument.

(4)           In the calculation of time expressed as clear days, weeks, months or years, or as “at least” or “not less than” a number of days, weeks, months or years, the first and last days must be excluded.

(5)           In the calculation of time not referred to in subsection (4), the first day must be excluded and the last day included.

IF the court found that the second spouse survived the first spouse to die then her share passed to the husband. If it was found that she did not survive the husband by five days then her estate would be considered as tenants in common with his estate.

The court held that the second to die did in fact survive the first to die by five days, and that s 10 WESA  does not state clear days

Therefor the first and last days are included and amount to five days.

The reasoning followed a previous case interpreting survive by thirty days Re Day Estate 1982 BCJ 1288 which also said that part days are not to be counted.

Chain of Executorship When Executor Dies

Chain of Executorship When Executor Dies

The chain of executorship when the executor dies before finishing his or her  duties  refers to where probate has been taken by an executor who survives the original testator, the right of such executor to a grant of probate does not cease and the representation to and the administration of the testator’s estate devolves to his executor. Re Aikins Estate (1963) 41 W.W.R. 226, at 227

4      Re Aikins Estate (1963) 41 W.W.R. 226, a decision of Friesen, Surr. Ct. J., where that learned judge gave a careful decision in a similar matter and refused the order. In his reasons, Friesen, Surr. Ct. J., at p. 227, quoted from Macdonell & Sheard’s Probate Practice at p. 113 as follows:

‘… if a sole executor, or the survivor of several executors, having proved the will, dies without having completed the administration of the estate, his executor when he proves the will becomes the executor of the original testator. It is only an executor who has proved the will who can transmit the executorship, and, therefore, if the executor named predeceases the testator or dies without having taken probate there must be an administration.’

One of the leading cases on the topic in British Columbia is O’Gorman Estates (1965)  51 WWR 762

Copy of Will Probated

Copy of Will Probated

Under certain circumstances a copy of a will rather than the original, may be admitted to probate as the last valid will of the deceased.

The competing claimants will typically  argue that there is a presumption of revocation when the original will cannot be produced.

There is more information on this topic under my  blog heading of lost wills.

In short reasons for judgement, Canada Trust v MacMillan 2016 BCSC 1909 sets out a situation where the court was satisfied by evidence that the will maker executed a last will that had become lost due to changes in the law firms that held the will. Evidence was also led that she was mentally capable  at the time the will was signed, as it was argues she had suffered from mental illness for much of her life.

Canada Trust v MacMillan 2016 BCSC 1909

APPLICATION by bank for pronouncement of force and validity of last will of deceased in solemn form.

Gray J., In Chambers:

1      I am prepared to make the order requested. I will just give some very brief reasons for judgment.
2      Canada Trust is seeking a series of orders. The most important is a pronouncement for the force and validity of the last will of Joan Margaret MacMillan (“Ms. MacMillan”) dated November 5, 2002, in solemn form.
3      Ms. MacMillan passed away in March 2014 at the age of about 81 years. She had an estate which is presently worth a little bit more than two million dollars.
4      There were really three areas of concern that were addressed. The first is that the original signed will is not available. However, there is evidence that Mr. Argue was the lawyer who prepared the will. He was a lawyer with the law firm Owen Bird at the time he did the initial work on the will, and a few days later he started working at the law firm Campney & Murphy, and he was a lawyer with that firm when the will was executed.
5      A wills notice was filed saying that the will was kept at the law firm Campney & Murphy, but that law firm ceased operations, and the will was not found in the vault.
6      Two copies of the will were found, one in the deceased’s personal documents, and the other with Canada Trust, which was involved in referring Ms. MacMillan to Mr. Argue for preparation of the will. There was also an email from Mr. Argue to the Canada Trust officer who had been involved, saying that the will had been executed.
7      On the basis of all this, I am satisfied that the will was executed in compliance with the Wills Act formalities, even though we do not have the original will itself. We have the copy. It is appropriate with the correction in the name of the cousin, to Dorothy C. Anderson (“Ms. Anderson”). The name originally provided was Dorothy T. Anderson, but that name was incorrect.
8      The will itself provided that the residue would be distributed equally between Ms. Anderson and James V. Bennett, or to the survivor. In fact, Ms. Anderson predeceased the will maker. So pursuant to the will, it would be Mr. Bennett who would receive the entire residue of the estate.
9      Mr. Bennett was not a relative of the will maker. He met her in connection with doing some private investigation work for her. After that, he spent some time assisting her with chores, assisting her around the home, and having some social interaction with her such as lunches and teas and so on.
10      There was a concern about the will maker’s capacity to make the will. Ms. MacMillan had a history of mental illness. She suffered bipolar disorder, with episodes of depression and episodes of manic behaviour. She had some hospitalizations over the course of her lifetime. However, at the time of giving instructions and the execution of the will, she satisfied Ms. Taylor of Canada Trust and the lawyer, Mr. Argue, that she had testamentary capacity. She knew the extent of her estate. She knew that she had no living parents or siblings or children.
11      There is also the evidence of Dr. Sloan, a geriatric physician, and Dr. Hurwitz, a neurologist and psychiatrist, based on their review of medical records, all suggesting that the will maker had testamentary capacity. I am satisfied that Ms. MacMillan had the necessary capacity to execute the will at the time she did so.
12      A concern was also raised about undue influence. I have read Mr. Bennett’s affidavit, and I have not seen any evidence that suggests that there was undue influence.
13      Having considered all these things, I will make the orders sought and I am happy to initial the approved form of order.

Gifts In Contemplation of Death

Gifts In Contemplation of Death

Deathbed gifts happen surprisingly often. It is relatively common for people, during their last days, to make sizable gifts to caregivers and loved ones. Frequently the purported gift is at odds with the will of the dying person. Like deathbed wills, deathbed gifts’ often result in estate litigation. In fact they occur with such frequency that section 18 of Community Care and Assisted Living Act, RSBC 2002, prohibits agents, designates and employees of licensed community care facilities from receiving any gifts or inheritances. The ethical code of nurses similarly prohibits same.

The law recognizes that a person may, in contemplation of his or her imminent death, make a gift transferring the ownership of property. Such a gift will take effect only upon the death of the donor and otherwise may be revoked. The legal expression for a gift made in contemplation of death is donatio mortis causa.

For a donatio mortis causa to be an effective gift in law, there are three requirements, namely:

1) The gift must have been in contemplation of death;

2)The donor must ensure there is delivery of the subject matter of the gift to the donee (recipient of the gift);

3)The gift must be made under such circumstances that show that gift may be revoked should the donor recover.

These principles were set out in the seminal case of Cain v. Moon (1896) 2 Q.B. 283. Although this was an English decision, it has been adopted by Canadian courts and is thus part of Canadian law.

Accordingly a donatio mortis causa is a gift made by a person inter vivos (during his or her life) with the intention that the gift should take effect only upon death. The gift is therefore conditional upon death. Once death occurs, however, the gift takes effect retrospectively and is effective from the date that the gift was initially made. Such gifts are a recognized exception to the general rule requiring all testamentary gifts conform with the provisions of the Wills Act.

The origins of donatio mortis causa are found in Roman law, where they were used to avoid the formal requirements of the law relating to the valid execution of wills.

The Supreme Court of Canada has described donatio mortis causa as a sort of “amphibious gift, between a gift made inter vivos and a legacy left in a testator’s will”. This description is found in McDonald v. McDonald (1903) S.C.R. 145 at page 161.

A donatio mortis causa is similar to a will in that it remains revocable up until the donor’s death renders it absolute. The donee’s title only becomes absolute at the moment of the donor’s death. It is also at the moment of death that the personal representative of the deceased acquires title to all of the deceased’s assets except, naturally, those which are the subject of a valid donatio mortis causa. Thus where disputes arise, the conflict is usually between the beneficiaries under the will and the claimant of any purported donatio mortis causa.

Donatio mortis causa need not be proved as testamentary gifts under the deceased’s estate i.e. there are no formal requirements for execution as there are for a will. Nevertheless any person claiming to benefit from such a gift bears a heavy onus of proof. In order to give effect to the purported gift, the courts will require clear and unmistakable proof that the deceased intended to give the property donatio mortis causa. Often the courts will specifically require evidence to corroborate the deceased’s intention.

In this paper I will review some of the leading Canadian cases dealing with the doctrine of donatio mortis causa.

1. Bank Accounts

In the 1993 B.C. Supreme Court case Slagboom Estate v. Kirby (1993) 48 E.T.R. 219 the deceased was 88 years old when he died. His health had declined rapidly in the last year of his life and he had suffered many illnesses requiring frequent doctors’ visits.

About five weeks prior to his death, the deceased had deposited $42,500 in the defendant’s bank account. She was a longterm friend who provided companionship and assistance in his declining years. Shortly before the deposit, the deceased told her he wanted her to keep the money so that she could do his banking for him. At the time of the deposit, the deceased told her that he did not want his brother to have his money and that if something should happen to him, the money remaining in the account was to be hers.

A couple of weeks later, the deceased made a will leaving his entire estate to his brother, however there remained only $4500 in the estate.

In this action, the plaintiff brother sought recovery of the $42,500 alleging there was insufficient evidence that the gift was made in contemplation of death. The plaintiff claimed the deceased only intended to deposit his money with the defendant so that she could assist him with his banking.

The court awarded the funds to the defendant, however, ruling there had indeed been a valid gift made in contemplation of death. The court found that the phrase “if something happens to me” had been used euphemistically and on the facts of this case indicated a genuine and reasonable contemplation of death.

In Morton v. Dafoe (1926) 30 O.W.N.193, the deceased was hospitalized a few days before her death. She asked for certain documents to be brought to her including money and her bank passbook. She put the passbook into a bag which she handed to the

defendant, an old and trusted friend. As she did so, the deceased said to her friend, in the presence of witnesses “keep it; it is yours if I do not come back.”

On these facts, the Court held that there had been a valid gift. The court ruled that the gift had been made in contemplation of death in circumstances showing the gift was conditional upon that death. The defendant was thus entitled to the monies on deposit with the bank as represented by the passbook.

2. Safety Deposit Box Keys

In Costiniukv. British Columbia (Official Administrator), 34 E.T.R. (2d) 199, the plaintiffs claimed the contents to a safety deposit box as a gift donatio mortis causa.

The deceased died intestate with no next of kin. She left an estate worth nearly $1 million. During the last few years of her life, the deceased had lived alone and was frequently ill. The plaintiffs, who had known her for many years, had greatly assisted her. Before the deceased went into the hospital for the last time, she gave the keys to her safety deposit boxes to the plaintiffs saying that if she ever needed them back she would ask for them.

The day before she died, in the presence of medical technicians, the deceased told the plaintiffs they were to have everything in the boxes.

The safety deposit box contained stamps worth $2300, an RRSP receipt and the state of title certificate for her home. The plaintiffs brought an action claiming entitlement to all of these assets.

The official administrator defended the action claiming there was no effective donatio mortis causa because there had been no delivery to the plaintiffs of the subject matter of the gift.

The court found that handing over the keys to the safety deposit boxes did constitute effective delivery because the keys were essential in order to get possession of the contents of the boxes. Thus the contents of the box passed to the plaintiff as a valid donatio mortis causa. Only the stamps, however, passed in title to the plaintiffs. The court held that neither the RRSP receipt nor the state of title certificate was a valid means of effecting transfer of those assets. Therefore they ruled there was no delivery to the plaintiffs of either the land or the RRSP.

This decision was upheld on appeal.

3. Furniture and Personal Effects

In Re Rosemergey, 49 B.C.R.93, the deceased had employed her housekeeper for many years. When she became ill and learned that her condition was terminal the deceased had signed and delivered a paper giving her housekeeper all the furniture and personal effects in the house. None of the articles mentioned in the written memorandum were mentioned in the deceased’s will.

The court held that there was a valid gift in contemplation of death even though there was no actual physical change of possession. The court reasoned that the deceased, so far as possible, had abandoned possession of the furniture and personal effects, while the donee housekeeper had taken and maintained possession of them to the same degree.

4. Forgiveness of a Debt

The case of Re Calaiezzi Estate, 1993 Carswell Ont 2724 from Ontario illustrates the successful foregiveness of a mortgage debt. Six months before his death, the deceased had loaned the sum of $130,000 to the defendant. This debt was secured by an unregistered mortgage. Payments were made on the loan, however the deceased was heard to tell the defendant to tear up the loan agreement and that she no longer owed the deceased any money. The deceased specifically said that he was dying and the money wasn’t any good to him. The deceased directed witnesses to this conversation to find the loan agreement and destroy it, however were unable to carry out these instructions because they could not find it.

The deceased’s executors brought an action claiming the balance owing on the loan. The defendant successfully argued that the deceased had forgiven the loan as a donatio mortis causa. The court ruled the deceased knew he was dying when the gift was made and it was so closely to time of the death that the gift was conditional upon that death. The court also found delivery had occurred when the deceased instructed the witness to find and destroy the agreement.

5. Real Property

As noted above in the Costiniuk case it appears that delivery of the state of title certificate was not sufficient delivery to be a valid donatio mortis causa.

Similarly, in Dyck v. Cardon 17 E. T. R. 54, the Alberta Court of Appeal held that delivery of keys to a house was not sufficient to complete a gift.

In fact, it would appear that the weight of Canadian judicial opinion is that real property cannot be the subject of a donatio mortis causa.

The English Court of Appeal, however, has ruled otherwise. In Sen v. Headley (1991) 2 All ER 636 the deceased handed over the keys of a steel box containing the title deeds to the deceased’s real property. The court found that in doing so “the deceased had indisputably made a gift of the house to the plaintiff in contemplation of his death to be effective on his death and his parting with the dominion over the title deeds to the house was sufficient to satisfy the third of the requirements necessary to establish a valid donatio mortis causa”

Conclusion

From a review of the caselaw, it is clear that the courts are open to upholding donatio mortis causa in appropriate circumstances where they are satisfied, by credible witnesses, that the three essential criteria have been proven.

Gravely ill people frequently mention such things as the forgiveness of debts or the gift of various assets. These declarations are so frequently at odds with the contents of the will it is surprising there is so little litigation involving claims of donatio mortis causa.

Probate Revoked For Improper Service

Probate Revoked For Improper Service

Al- Sabah Estate 2016 BCSC 1781 both have a probate revoked and removed the administrator for both failing to disclose important information to the court as well as sending the required probate notice to her close relatives at addresses that were mostly incorrect and could have easily been corrected.

The court held that   equity favoured the revocation of grant of letters of administration and followed the decision of Desbiens v Smith Estate 2010 BCCA 394 where a grant of probate was set aside in order to allow a wills variation action brought” out of time”, but the defendants had not received notice of the probate application due to an incorrect address used by the executor who should have been more diligent.

40      Moreover, I am satisfied that, at the time she applied for the grant of letters of administration of the estate, Sheikha Salem failed to disclose to the court pertinent information that ought to have been disclosed.

41      Where the evidence discloses that the person who is obliged to give notice failed to exercise sufficient diligence to ascertain the correct address to which the notice was to be mailed, the notice requirements of the Act are not complied with, and the court has a general discretion to revoke a grant of letters of administration: Desbiens v. Smith Estate 2010 BCCA 394 (B.C. C.A.) at paras. 21 to 35 inclusive. I do note that that decision dealt with the Act’s predecessor, the now-repealed Estate Administration Act, which was replaced by the Act. However, the general principles of law remain applicable.

42      When it is alleged that an administrator should be removed because he or she is not acting in the best interests of the estate, the main factor to be considered is the welfare of the beneficiaries: Veitch v. Veitch Estate, 2007 BCSC 952 (B.C. S.C.) at para. 22