Male-only inehirtance overturned

[SeoulFire]

Originally Posted by onetwo_threefour

One has to assume this would get overturned on appeal...

The ruling judge should be fired as well.

[troutman]

It is harder in Alberta than B.C. to vary a will.

In Alberta:

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/574.cfm?pag...7&display=html

Order for maintenance support
3(1) If a person
(a) dies testate without making in the person’s will adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the person’s dependants or any of them, or
(b) dies intestate and the share under the Intestate Succession Act of the intestate’s dependants or of any of them in the estate is inadequate for their proper maintenance and support,
a judge, on application by or on behalf of the dependants or any of them, may in the judge’s discretion, notwithstanding the provisions of the will or the Intestate Succession Act, order that any provision that the judge considers adequate be made out of the estate of the deceased for the proper maintenance and support of the dependants or any of them.
(2) The judge on the hearing of the application
(a) may inquire into and consider all matters that the judge considers should be fairly taken into account in deciding the application,
(b) may in addition to the evidence adduced by the parties appearing direct any other evidence to be given that the judge considers necessary or proper, and
(c) may accept any evidence that the judge considers proper of the deceased’s reasons, so far as ascertainable,
(i) for making the dispositions made by the deceased’s will, or
(ii) for not making adequate provision for a dependant,
including any statement in writing signed by the deceased.
(3) In estimating the weight to be given to a statement referred to in subsection (2)(c), the judge shall have regard to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement.
(4) The judge may make a suspensory order suspending in whole or in part the administration of the deceased’s estate so that an application may be made for an order making specific provision for maintenance and support.
(5) The judge may refuse to make an order in favour of any dependant whose character or conduct is such as in the opinion of the judge disentitles the dependant to the benefit of an order under this Act.
(6) When a testator dies intestate as to part of the testator’s estate, the judge may make an order affecting either the part of the estate as to which the testator died testate or the part as to which the testator died intestate or as to both parts.

[Coys1882]

Strange decision but if this guy was as big of an a-hole to the girls that cared for him in his last days as the story makes it sound, then I'm fine with a dying man not getting his final wish.

However, I'm sure there are details that haven't been released like the girls are perennial drug users or spend thrifts.

[jammies]

Sounds like the deceased no longer being around was reward enough. The law may not have been served, but justice may have been.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

Strange decision but if this guy was as big of an a-hole to the girls that cared for him in his last days, I'm fine with a dying man not getting his final wish.

God knows I'm no lawyer, but isn't a lot of law based upon prior rulings (they always cite prior cases on Law and Order at least!)? While one might be sympathetic to the daughters in this case, it seems like this type of ruling, if upheld, has a lot of potential to screw things up down the road.

[valo403]

Reading the full decision this just gets more ridiculous. There is apparently a basis in Canadian law for allowing contemporary moral standards into an asessment of a will, which I find disturbing, but the judge in this case has latched onto that notion while completely disregarding the other standards under which a will is to be analyzed.

A good portion of the opinion discusses the incredibly strained and overall absence of a familial relationship between the father and any of the daughters. Two of the daughters spent the vast majority of their lives with virtually no relationship with their father. Despite that, most of them appear to have recieved fairly significant financial assitance at some point from their father, although any type of relationship seems to be absed strictly upon that. I don't blame the daughters, the guy sounds like a terrible father and a terrible person. However, the fact that there is a clear and reasonable basis for not including the daughters in his will is completely overlooked by the judge and replaced with his own construction of morality. A reasoned decision by the deceased to distribute his estate in a certain manner should control, and the almost complete absence of anything but a strained relationship with the daughters coupled with previous gifts provides just that.

[troutman]

The Son could share his inheritance with his sisters, despite what the will said. I assume from the law suit that he did not want to do that.

I have often found that family estate disputes are nastier and uglier than most divorces.

I think in Alberta, on these facts, the court would not vary the will if there was a significant estrangement.

[CaptainCrunch]

And that children is why you blow your money on good quality cocaine and fine fine prostitutes before you die.

The courts can't overturn your will if the only thing left in your estate is a loaf of bread and a collection of used condoms stuck to the ceiling.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Table 5

God knows I'm no lawyer, but isn't a lot of law based upon prior rulings (they always cite prior cases on Law and Order at least!)? While one might be sympathetic to the daughters in this case, it seems like this type of ruling, if upheld, has a lot of potential to screw things up down the road.

This is the big issue with a decision like this, it extends an already dangerous line of cases to an even greater extent. Reading the opinion this all stems from judges taking small steps down a slippery slope, with each succesive judge going a little bit further in extending the courts ability to override the wishes of the deceased. Because each decision is tied into the last the ability to overturn becomes more onerous as there is a relatively solid legal basis.

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by valo403

Reading the full decision this just gets more ridiculous. There is apparently a basis in Canadian law for allowing contemporary moral standards into an asessment of a will, which I find disturbing, but the judge in this case has latched onto that notion while completely disregarding the other standards under which a will is to be analyzed.

A good portion of the opinion discusses the incredibly strained and overall absence of a familial relationship between the father and any of the daughters. Two of the daughters spent the vast majority of their lives with virtually no relationship with their father. Despite that, most of them appear to have recieved fairly significant financial assitance at some point from their father, although any type of relationship seems to be absed strictly upon that. I don't blame the daughters, the guy sounds like a terrible father and a terrible person. However, the fact that there is a clear and reasonable basis for not including the daughters in his will is completely overlooked by the judge and replaced with his own construction of morality. A reasoned decision by the deceased to distribute his estate in a certain manner should control, and the almost complete absence of anything but a strained relationship with the daughters coupled with previous gifts provides just that.

Sometimes law doesn't do what should be done. Karma is a bitch.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Table 5

God knows I'm no lawyer, but isn't a lot of law based upon prior rulings (they always cite prior cases on Law and Order at least!)? While one might be sympathetic to the daughters in this case, it seems like this type of ruling, if upheld, has a lot of potential to screw things up down the road.

That's the problem with it. I don't think anyone cares that the daughters ended up with part of the inheritence, but legislating morality and setting case examples is a slippery slope.

[mykalberta]

Since when do the courts care about morality? I thought their job in life was to care about this thing called the LAW.

What if he left all his money to a charity and none to any sibling will we see judges overturn that as well.

Good ole activist judges.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Since when do the courts care about morality? I thought their job in life was to care about this thing called the LAW.

What if he left all his money to a charity and none to any sibling will we see judges overturn that as well.

Good ole activist judges.

Not necessarily - wills variation claims are statutory at the roots. Judges are interpreting laws enacted by the Provincial Governments.

Compare the BC Law to the Alberta Law (noted above). The Alberta law specifically considers the character and conduct of the dependant. BC case law has probably listed relevant factors.:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_96490_01

Maintenance from estate

2 Despite any law or statute to the contrary, if a testator dies leaving a will that does not, in the court's opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the testator's spouse or children, the court may, in its discretion, in an action by or on behalf of the spouse or children, order that the provision that it thinks adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances be made out of the testator's estate for the spouse or children.

Evidence

5 (1) In an action under section 2 the court may accept the evidence it considers proper of the testator's reasons, so far as ascertainable,
(a) for making the dispositions made in the will, or
(b) for not making adequate provision for the spouse or children,
including any written statement signed by the testator.
(2) In estimating the weight to be given to a statement referred to in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances from which an inference may reasonably be drawn about the accuracy or otherwise of the statement.

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

In that case it WOULD be based on a moral standard.

From the judges decision:




Seems like the father was quite the a-hole. To give nothing to the person that took care of you when you were ill....

HA...you can pay someone to "take care of you"...cooking/cleaning is a $100/day job. No need to reward the mediocre.

[llama64]

What I find abhorrent is the concept that the children deserve ANY of their parents estate.

If my parents leave me stuff, cool. But I'm sure as hell not going to fight for it. I'm man enough to make my own wealth.

Thank god I'm not having kids... means I can leave my wealth to the cute nurse who looks after me just before I die.

[4X4]

Wong noted in his ruling that the father terrorized his daughters and made them wash his feet.
"The evidence of all of the daughters indicate that their father was a hard and rigid man who ruled his family, and especially the women, with an iron fist," Wong said in his ruling. "He was a racist whose will and personality dominated his family."

Sounds to me like the judge is just trying to make up for their dad being a prick. I think this is a ridiculous decision by the court. Since when is it unfair to not inherit anything? Lots and lots of parents die and leave nothing but debt for their kids to deal with.
Dad may have been an a-hole, but it's not the court's job to make the kids feel better about it.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Sounds to me like the judge is just trying to make up for their dad being a prick. I think this is a ridiculous decision by the court. Since when is it unfair to not inherit anything? Lots and lots of parents die and leave nothing but debt for their kids to deal with.

Dad may have been an a-hole, but it's not the court's job to make the kids feel better about it.

I was thinking about that.

What if the parent left the estate to 1 child but the estate ended up being in debt. Would the other siblings be off the hook then? And if so, would the 1 child be allowed to contest it in court to spread out the debt to the other siblings?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not necessarily - wills variation claims are statutory at the roots. Judges are interpreting laws enacted by the Provincial Governments.

Compare the BC Law to the Alberta Law (noted above). The Alberta law specifically considers the character and conduct of the dependant. BC case law has probably listed relevant factors.:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_96490_01

Maintenance from estate

2 Despite any law or statute to the contrary, if a testator dies leaving a will that does not, in the court's opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the testator's spouse or children, the court may, in its discretion, in an action by or on behalf of the spouse or children, order that the provision that it thinks adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances be made out of the testator's estate for the spouse or children.

Evidence

5 (1) In an action under section 2 the court may accept the evidence it considers proper of the testator's reasons, so far as ascertainable,
(a) for making the dispositions made in the will, or
(b) for not making adequate provision for the spouse or children,
including any written statement signed by the testator.
(2) In estimating the weight to be given to a statement referred to in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances from which an inference may reasonably be drawn about the accuracy or otherwise of the statement.

For me, this statute goes a long way toward explaining this decision, actually.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I was thinking about that.

What if the parent left the estate to 1 child but the estate ended up being in debt. Would the other siblings be off the hook then? And if so, would the 1 child be allowed to contest it in court to spread out the debt to the other siblings?

As far as I know, beneficiaries are not responsible for the Testator's debts.

Insolvent Estates:

http://www.raymondchabot.com/estate

4. Does the liquidator or do the beneficiaries have any responsibility toward the creditors?
The Court decision releases the liquidator and/or heirs from estate obligations.

[onetwo_threefour]

Originally Posted by troutman

Not necessarily - wills variation claims are statutory at the roots. Judges are interpreting laws enacted by the Provincial Governments.

Compare the BC Law to the Alberta Law (noted above). The Alberta law specifically considers the character and conduct of the dependant. BC case law has probably listed relevant factors.:

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bcl...de/00_96490_01

Maintenance from estate

2 Despite any law or statute to the contrary, if a testator dies leaving a will that does not, in the court's opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the testator's spouse or children, the court may, in its discretion, in an action by or on behalf of the spouse or children, order that the provision that it thinks adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances be made out of the testator's estate for the spouse or children.

Evidence

5 (1) In an action under section 2 the court may accept the evidence it considers proper of the testator's reasons, so far as ascertainable,
(a) for making the dispositions made in the will, or
(b) for not making adequate provision for the spouse or children,
including any written statement signed by the testator.
(2) In estimating the weight to be given to a statement referred to in subsection (1), the court must have regard to all the circumstances from which an inference may reasonably be drawn about the accuracy or otherwise of the statement.

Of course the interesting difference between the BC statute and the Alberta is the distinction between "spouse or children" (BC) and "dependants" (Alberta). Depending on whether children as defined in BC includes adult children, this could actually justify the ruling if the father's will didn't provide adequate support for his adult daughters. I wouldn't have thought there would be that much difference between the two provinces, but I might have been wrong about an appeal. I have no intention of researching the question, but it's an interesting distinction in the language between the provinces.