Re Godby Estate 2015 BCSC 1809 Involves the court appointment of an estate administrator pursuant to s 132 WESA.
Estate property was under foreclosure and the majority of beneficiaries wanted Solus Trust to be appointed as court administrator of the estate.
- 132 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 [WESA], which states:
- Despite sections 130 and 131, the court may appoint as administrator of an estate any person the court considers appropriate if, because of special circumstances, the court considers it appropriate to do so
- The appointment of an administrator under subsection (1) may be
(a) conditional or unconditional, and
(b) made for general, special or limited purposes.
45 By their opposing applications, the parties effectively seek the same result: appointment of a special administrator under s. 132 of WESA.
46 The appointment sought is within the discretion of the court. The discretion must be exercised with a view to placing the administration of the estate in the hands of the entity that is likely best to convert it to the advantage of those with claims to the estate, per Earl of Warwick v. Greville (1809), 1 Phill. Ecc. 132, 161 E.R. 934 (Eng. P.D.A.).
47 The fact that the majority of the beneficiaries in this case support the appointment of Solus is a significant factor for me to consider, per Williams v. Wilkins (1812), 2 Phill. Ecc. 100, 161 E.R. 1090 (Eng. K.B.). The majority beneficiaries are entitled to about 80% of the estate and have a significant interest in its administration.
48 Friction between a beneficiary and a trustee, in the absence of misconduct or breach of trust on the part of the trustee, is not sufficient to merit the removal of a trustee: Conroy v. Stokes, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 124 (B.C. C.A.).
The Court appointed the special administrator for the following reasons:
“In light of the fact that the majority of the beneficiaries entitled to the vast majority of the estate continue to support Solus as administrator, and that Solus has an outstanding contract of purchase and sale on the deceased’s home at a price exceeding its appraised value and has commenced” other work to administer the estate, it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries that Solus be appointed the administrator of deceased’s estate. I make that order under s. 132 of WESA in the same form as previously granted. I also order that Barbara’s notice of dispute filed July 24, 2015 be removed.
Estate property was under foreclosure and the majority of beneficiaries wanted Solus Trust to be appointed as court administrator of the estate.
- 132 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 [WESA], which states:
- Despite sections 130 and 131, the court may appoint as administrator of an estate any person the court considers appropriate if, because of special circumstances, the court considers it appropriate to do so.
- The appointment of an administrator under subsection (1) may be
(a) conditional or unconditional, and
(b) made for general, special or limited purposes.
45 By their opposing applications, the parties effectively seek the same result: appointment of a special administrator under s. 132 of WESA.
46 The appointment sought is within the discretion of the court. The discretion must be exercised with a view to placing the administration of the estate in the hands of the entity that is likely best to convert it to the advantage of those with claims to the estate, per Earl of Warwick v. Greville (1809), 1 Phill. Ecc. 132, 161 E.R. 934 (Eng. P.D.A.).
47 The fact that the majority of the beneficiaries in this case support the appointment of Solus is a significant factor for me to consider, per Williams v. Wilkins (1812), 2 Phill. Ecc. 100, 161 E.R. 1090 (Eng. K.B.). The majority beneficiaries are entitled to about 80% of the estate and have a significant interest in its administration.
48 Friction between a beneficiary and a trustee, in the absence of misconduct or breach of trust on the part of the trustee, is not sufficient to merit the removal of a trustee: Conroy v. Stokes, [1952] 4 D.L.R. 124 (B.C. C.A.).
The Court appointed the special administrator for the following reasons:
“In light of the fact that the majority of the beneficiaries entitled to the vast majority of the estate continue to support Solus as administrator, and that Solus has an outstanding contract of purchase and sale on the deceased’s home at a price exceeding its appraised value and has commenced” other work to administer the estate, it is in the best interests of the beneficiaries that Solus be appointed the administrator of deceased’s estate. I make that order under s. 132 of WESA in the same form as previously granted. I also order that Barbara’s notice of dispute filed July 24, 2015 be removed.
