Daughters contest will in Supreme Court

[Raekwon]

Just read a story about a family that left a will splitting their 9 Million Dollar estate 93% for their 2 sons and the remainder to their 4 daughters, the daughters contested the will in court and won.

" Last week, Justice Elaine Adair redistributed the Litt estate, granting 60 per cent, or about $1.35 million each, to Amar and her sisters, and splitting the remaining 40 per cent, about $1.8 million each, between the brothers."

What is the point of a will if it can just be overturned?

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens...ance-1.5221770

[MoneyGuy]

The point is wills have to be fair and reasonable. That seems to not be the case here.

A more egregious example would be if a man abandoned his wife and left all of his money to a common-law partner while his wife was caring for his five children.

We can decide what to do with our estate but wills can be overturned by a court.

[Hemi-Cuda]

In that specific case, it sounds like a clear cut case of gender discrimination, and was rightfully overruled. If the daughters had no hand in building the business and were just looking for a cut after their parents died, I don't think they would have won

[MoneyGuy]

Double post

[The Yen Man]

I get the gender discrimination. But if it was legit the dead person's money, don't they have the right to give it to whoever they want after they die? Why does it have to be fair? It's not public money. What if the person want it donated instead? Can the dead person's family contest it and say it's not fair and that they have a right to that rather than it being donated?

[Raekwon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

In that specific case, it sounds like a clear cut case of gender discrimination, and was rightfully overruled. If the daughters had no hand in building the business and were just looking for a cut after their parents died, I don't think they would have won

Fair enough, I assume this was investigated thoroughly to determine this, its to bad the brothers didn't just step up and even offer them more to avoid this. Money brings out the worst in people. If I had two children and once was very undeserving I would hope my will couldn't be over turned easily.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I get the gender discrimination. But if it was legit the dead person's money, don't they have the right to give it to whoever they want after they die? Why does it have to be fair? It's not public money. What if the person want it donated instead? Can the dead person's family contest it and say it's not fair and that they have a right to that rather than it being donated?

Donating it all to charity wouldn't be discrimination then.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah... that's a tough one. I think the decision is probably the right one, because effectively it's an unjust enrichment - the brothers gain value from the sisters' work over many years, without any legal basis for that happening.

On the other hand, if I have X property, I'm entitled to do with it as I choose for whatever reason I like, while I'm alive. The same should be true on my death. It's my property, I get to decide who I give it to. If, for example, I decide I want to transfer title to my house to my brother tomorrow, I can do that. Or I can transfer it to my mom. Or both of them equally. Entirely up to me, and I don't have to justify that decision to anyone. To have the courts step in and make that decision for me does not sit well with me.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Donating it all to charity wouldn't be discrimination then.

You’ve provoked an interesting thought...

What if they donated it to a discriminatory organization? Like the KKK because I can’t name any.

[The Yen Man]

I didn't think it mattered in a will whether there is discrimination or not.

I guess after reading the story, their argument was they had a hand in generating the wealth, so they have a right to part of it. Had the kids not had any part in the parents generating the wealth, and the parents end up leaving 90% to their sons, would they still have a case based on gender discrimination? If so, then what's the point of even having a will? It'll just end up being split equally anyways.

[OMG!WTF!]

The dump in that picture is worth 9 million?

[Scroopy Noopers]

The will was written in 1993. This is starting to make more and more sense.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The dump in that picture is worth 9 million?

I think it's the crap load of land in Richmond that's worth $9m.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The will was written in 1993. This is starting to make more and more sense.

It may make more sense, but does it matter? If the parents had wanted, they could have had the will updated.

This does kind make me wonder what the point of a will is.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Raekwon

Fair enough, I assume this was investigated thoroughly to determine this, its to bad the brothers didn't just step up and even offer them more to avoid this. Money brings out the worst in people. If I had two children and once was very undeserving I would hope my will couldn't be over turned easily.

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

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

The dump in that picture is worth 9 million?

my dumps worth 1.3 and I wouldn't give you 400,000 for it in a sane world

[lazypucker]

Unless it is proven that the parents wrote the will with their sons pointing a gun to their heads, I don't know why anyone can challenge how the estate is being split.

If say I hate my children and I put it in my will that to donate every cent to charity, I don't think the court will even listen if my children think they should get a fair share.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

In that case the will should explicitly state who gets what and the reasoning behind it. ...

No, it shouldn't. If one wants to leave all of his money to a dog instead of his twelve children, he should be able to do so without any explanations owed to anyone and nobody should be able to challenge his right to do so. It doesn't make it right or nice or fair; but that's irrelevant.

I believe the issues here were more around daughters' entitlement to a share of the wealth they have helped create.

[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.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

I believe the issues here were more around daughters' entitlement to a share of the wealth they have helped create.

What entitlement is that? I'm not being snarky or rhetorical, genuinely curious if there is. I just don't think there is one. Unless they can argue that they were unfairly compensated, forced unpaid child labour, below minimum wage, or something, then I don't think there's much legal entitlement to be had. But based on the ruling I would be wrong.

EDIT: I don't have a moral issue with the will being altered in this case, I think morally it's the right decision based on the facts. Archaic outdated belief that sons are better than daughters. Legally, I'm surprised.