Daughters contest will in Supreme Court

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I'm also not sure about the argument that the sisters contributed to the success of the farm being a reason to alter the will.

If my boss dies tomorrow and I'm left out of the will, I can't go and argue that I helped build his estate. Of course my boss isn't my parent, but I don't see why that would change anything legally.

Absent a will, an estate would be sent to closest relatives not closest employees. I think it makes sense to divide equal shares for equal worth. It's reasonable to assume employees are fairly compensated whereas family effort and sacrifice is not so easily accounted.

I assume there is a cultural element here as well. If so it's nice that there is a legal side step in favor of fairness.

[manwiches]

Could be a cultural thing too.

In my culture (Chinese), traditionally, the son receives almost everything. Not saying it's happened to me, because it's not, but I have direct knowledge and it's within my own family that I've seen this. 1 son, multiple daughters, son gets 95% of the estate after parents pass away. 5% is split amongst the rest. None of the daughters will contest though. It's not worth any of their time.

[FireGilbert]

Well buddy is dead so it’s not like he’s going to be upset his will was changed.

This is a good example of why you should put some thought into your will. Instead of gifting money to your favourites consider more equitable solutions that limit family drama.

[FireGilbert]

Dp

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

In that case the will should explicitly state who gets what and the reasoning behind it. There were no details in the article aside from the fact that the will hadn't been updated in over 2 decades, which could be reason enough to nullify it. But if you stated that kid 1 gets 100% of your estate and kid 2 gets nothing, stating that kid 1 help build your estate while kid 2 did nothing and deserves nothing, then I don't see how that could ever be overturned

The limits on testamentary freedom vary in each province. In Alberta it is more difficult than in BC to vary a will. Here you would have to establish inadequate maintence and support was provided, and only a spouse or child can make this claim.

If my client wants to treat children differently, I make copious notes, and recommend they leave a detailed memo with their will explaining their reasoning.

Now, there is nothing stopping the children from settling on their own distribution. The brothers in this case could have shared with their sisters if they were embarrassed by the unequal distribution.

https://www.cwilson.com/wills-variat...nadian-values/

https://www.lawnow.org/people-always...y-legislation/

[Fuzz]

I've left everything to my garage. Even my clay pile.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've left everything to my garage. Even my clay pile.

What are you thinking? A clay pile is something you can literally take with you. You've beaten the system man. And they said there was no money in dirt.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by troutman

If my client wants to treat children differently, I make copious notes, and recommend they leave a detailed memo with their will explaining their reasoning.

Do most lawyers recommend this? How often to people do this when their estate is lopsided?

[Resolute 14]

Just for clarity, this wasn't the Supreme Court. It was the BC Supreme Court, which is that province's equivalent to the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench. We'll see if it goes to appeal.

I think I'm of the same two minds about this as everyone else. The will was clearly discriminatory, but this was also a private issue. I'm more than a little concerned if courts can just arbitrarily decide that what you do with your assets has to meet whatever arbitrary standards it wants to create.

On the other hand, a will written 25 years ago probably had deficiencies that could have invalidated it, and if the daughters' claim that (a) the parents had intended to update the will to be more equitable is credible and (b) the one brother indicated that he also felt the will should be rewritten, it lends weight to their argument.

[CaptainYooh]

Say, if one sibling spent money or taken debt caring for a dying parent, while others didn't, he/she should be able to ask for reimbursement from the estate before the remaining assets are distributed. Those examples are numerous and they deal with someone having a valid claim against the estate. This is not an issue at all here. No court should have a say about how a person behests his money though, fairly or unfairly, discriminatory or not. If one likes one kid more than another, he can leave all of his money to that kid, tough luck.

[CaptainYooh]

I just read the links provided by troutman. Looks like my understanding was incorrect and Canadian courts are changing people's wills at will...

In light of the variety of societal and cultural values in Canada and the differing values amongst them, the courts have concluded that there are common values within Canadian society that must be respected despite a testator’s wishes.

Can't say that I like or agree with this direction.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I just read the links provided by troutman. Looks like my understanding was incorrect and Canadian courts are changing people's wills at will...

Can't say that I like or agree with this direction.

Not at will. If they are challenged. It’s possible to write a bad Will. So don’t write a bad Will that will be contested.

[Oling_Roachinen]

What's even weirder for me to wrap my head around is that even the argument doesn't match the verdict. If you're going to say that the parents needed to treat each sibling equal and not discriminate based on gender, fair enough I guess, but then how can you rule 20% each to the sons and 15% each to the daughters?

Now I know that the judge tries to argue that this wasn't entirely discriminatory based and hence the 40% to sons and 60% to daughters, but it's just weird and very arbitrary in my opinion.

I'm not saying I agree with the parents, far from it, but in the decision I did like the one son's argument that in 1993, when the will was written, the $150,000 to each daughter was based on an estate evaluation of around 3M. Or roughly 5% each. Prorating that to the 2016 evaluation of 9M would give them each $450,000.

[Erick Estrada]

Bit of a slippery slope. I don't agree with the "East Indian" way and feel this is ruling is sensible but at the same time we are letting Sikhs ride motorcycle in turbans which IMO is not sensible so it's like we are arbitrarily picking and choosing what religions expression are sensible and what's not.

[Mightyfire89]

Well, can’t say I care for this at all. As others have said, what is the point of making a will if it can be overruled by the courts? I don’t care how unfair any particular will is perceived to be (or how old it is, for that matter), if that’s what the deceased wanted, that should be respected. I thought that’s how it was, vis a vis Canadian laws.
Ridiculous.

Also, regardless of what the will stipulated, if I was one of those sons, I would have divided my share of the estate equally with my sisters. ######bag behaviour by the sons (if that wasn’t something that was offered, I have no way of knowing).

[Maritime Q-Scout]

In Nova Scotia the Testators Family Maintenance Act supersedes a will in the sense that if a parent paid for/provided for someone (doesn't need to be blood) and was not in the will, that what the parent/person provided for will continue.

In theory, if my parents passed away tomorrow, and my brother and I got equal inheritance (which I know we would), I could challenge that in court stating that my parents take care of my child one day a week, and I should get compensation for that.

In reality it is to ensure that if a child, say a child that had a physical or mental condition that requires them to have special care is left out of a will, they will continue to be provided for.

The article doesn't go into the details, but if the superior court, court of appeal and SCC says that the daughters get their fair share, it's clear that they should get their fair share.

[Deegee]

This pretty much guarantees I will make sure I leave nothing upon death, unless of course I die by accidental means.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Bit of a slippery slope. I don't agree with the "East Indian" way and feel this is ruling is sensible but at the same time we are letting Sikhs ride motorcycle in turbans which IMO is not sensible so it's like we are arbitrarily picking and choosing what religions expression are sensible and what's not.

Indians don't even let this kind of thing happen in India. The Hindu Succession Act requires sons and daughters get equal allotments of inherited property. I haven't read it but from what I understand it's been revolutionary in creating fair succession. I'm a hundred percent in favour of this ruling because I think it's pretty easy for a judge to figure out what's fair and what isn't.

[stang]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I've left everything to my garage. Even my clay pile.

My garage has already taken all my money and I’m not even dead

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Indians don't even let this kind of thing happen in India. The Hindu Succession Act requires sons and daughters get equal allotments of inherited property. I haven't read it but from what I understand it's been revolutionary in creating fair succession. I'm a hundred percent in favour of this ruling because I think it's pretty easy for a judge to figure out what's fair and what isn't.

Take a look at the definition of last will and testament. That's not the criteria wills are based on. If the courts can split the assets as they see fit what's the point of a will? If I feel one of my kids doesn't deserve as much of my money or assets as the other that's my choice to make.