Daughters contest will in Supreme Court

[Fuzz]

The easiest solution is just to have the government take it all when you die. Then no one can complain.

[Wormius]

It wasn't the govennment though that just decided to rip up the Will and redistribute the estate. It was the children who got shafted by the Will that took issue with how the estate was divided based on their equal or more-so help in creating that wealth that was now being given to just the two male offspring.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

I really don't see the outrage here. Isn't it reasonable for the law to presume some form of equality in the first place? If the testator wants to divide the estate differently, that might be an issue. As our man Troutman suggested, better take great notes and indicate why the split is different. If there are legit reasons, great. If not, and the brothers don't agree to an equitable split, why shouldn't the daughters fight it?

It's not like this is happening all over the place by an "activist" court. I am sure millions, if not billions worth of dispositions are dealt with every year in Alberta with nary a peep. Probably most just split it up evenly without much more than a second thought.

[Shazam]

This is why you poison your siblings.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Wouldn't the divorce agreement have taken care of her?

I read the scenario as the wife doesn't know about the girlfriend.

Husband, runs around on wife, leaves everything to the girlfriend, wife (and kids) gets nothing.

I once heard a situation here in NS, where two people with adult children get married. The wife has an adult child with special needs which the couple take financial responsibility for (payment for the residency in the group home, etc).

Wife dies leaves everything to the husband, the husband continues to take care of the step-son with special needs.

Husband dies, but the will doesn't take into account the step-son, only his biological children.

Should the court step in and alter the will to provide for the step-son who the step-father was providing for?

Certainly.

Now in the case above, there was no malice, this was a scenario the couple didn't contemplate.

This why intentions when drafting a will are important, and a mechanism to ensure a level of fairness is needed.

Keep in mind overturning a will is incredibly difficult, and can only be done in select cases.

[Raekwon]

Ok thoughts on this scenario.

My Wife's grandfather owns land, he has 3 daughters but my wifes mom passed away about a year before the grandfather. Her father is still alive along with her sister but the land was set to be splitt equally was now only split between the two daughters. Sure her Mom was no longer alive but that is something that would have been passed down by her mother.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I don't know Alberta's laws around wills, but to my mind (again without looking anything up, just to me what seems fair) is that the 1/3 that would go to your mother-in-law should be split equally among your wife and her siblings (if any).

Its been a while, I feel like some provinces do that if the deceased is intestate (dies without a will).

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I don't know Alberta's laws around wills, but to my mind (again without looking anything up, just to me what seems fair) is that the 1/3 that would go to your mother-in-law should be split equally among your wife and her siblings (if any).

Its been a while, I feel like some provinces do that if the deceased is intestate (dies without a will).

In this case there was a will and the assumption is her Grandfather didn't like her Father and changed the will as soon as her mom passed away.

[opendoor]

It depends how the will was set up. It's pretty common for the parent's share to pass to their children (or "issues" in will language) if that parent predeceases whomever named them in their will. But they're not all like that. Some are written so that if one heir dies, their share is absorbed by the surviving heirs. In that case, the children of the deceased heir receive nothing.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I don't know Alberta's laws around wills, but to my mind (again without looking anything up, just to me what seems fair) is that the 1/3 that would go to your mother-in-law should be split equally among your wife and her siblings (if any).

Its been a while, I feel like some provinces do that if the deceased is intestate (dies without a will).

Pretty much, yes. My grandmother died without a will, and that's how it worked. Since my dad is also dead, my sister and I would have split what would have been his share. Her debts were greater than her assets, so it didn't actually mean anything, however.

[CaptainYooh]

It is clear that despite several comments from troutman (and a few others) many posters do not understand the difference between dying with and without a will. The former means the government will distribute your estate in accordance with the applicable estate law. The latter means that your estate will be distributed as YOU wish. Issues of fairness, equality and other outside factors should have nothing to do with how YOU want your money to be used after your death, because, theoretically it's your money and you could have spent it before you died without asking anyone for their permission or opinion. Also, in either case, anyone having a claim against the estate can still make it in court (probate process), which deals with financial issues of dead people's debts and legal obligations to other parties (dependents, estranged spouses, lovers etc.)

As I posted earlier based on the link provided by troutman, it appears that our courts are willing to give themselves more power on overwriting the wishes of the deceased, which are not encumbered by legitimate financial claims. This trend is very concerning.

[Scroopy Noopers]

This case is unique because if the parents sold the farm and downsized, and gave the profits to their sons, the daughters would likely be able to successfully sue for their share. Since they had a hand (literally) in building the fortune. This is basically what they did.

It’s not “fairness” due to blood. It’s an equal share in a fortune they helped create, with a spoken understanding that they would be compensated.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

As I posted earlier based on the link provided by troutman, it appears that our courts are willing to give themselves more power on overwriting the wishes of the deceased, which are not encumbered by legitimate financial claims. This trend is very concerning.

This isn't really a "trend". It's been the case for decades. Also, this is wrong:

many posters do not understand the difference between dying with and without a will. The former means the government will distribute your estate in accordance with the applicable estate law. The latter means that your estate will be distributed as YOU wish.

Regardless of whether you have a will or not, your estate is always distributed in accordance with applicable estate law. The difference is what provisions of the Wills and Succession Act apply in your particular case, and how they apply, depending on whether you have a will, when it was made, what has happened since, what it says, and many, many other factors.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

This case is unique because if the parents sold the farm and downsized, and gave the profits to their sons, the daughters would likely be able to successfully sue for their share. Since they had a hand (literally) in building the fortune. This is basically what they did.

It’s not “fairness” due to blood. It’s an equal share in a fortune they helped create, with a spoken understanding that they would be compensated.

Really,

What grounds would they have sued on if there parents just transferred the title to the brothers before they died.

Unless there was some sort of verbal contract I don’t think there is some enforceable fairness clause that if you put in a lot of work for something you don’t own that you get a fair chunk if a person decides to sell the asset.

I may have missed something in the articles but where was the spoken understanding that they would be compensated equally

[Maritime Q-Scout]

I'm only going on what people have posted here, but I would assume unjust enrichment.

If all the kids contributed equally, and the parents transferred the wealth of the business to the sons only, the daughters can sue due to unjust enrichment.