Daughters contest will in Supreme Court

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Then you should have some documentation in the will justifying it. Nothing is stopping you from writing whatever will you want, but if you decide to screw over beneficiaries based on discriminatory reasons, I guess you should anticipate the potential for them to contest it.

[Canadianman]

Originally Posted by Deegee

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

So suicide or murder it is.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

Yes and you still get that choice. If daughter A is not part of your life for whatever reason, you document those reasons in your will and it becomes a fair document...as long as the reason is not because she's female.

One of the reasons we enjoy functioning and robust economies in western democracies is because we encourage women to participate equally in them. This becomes more evident when you have examples of countries that do not. The whole reason India made this change is that on a macro level, excluding women from inheritance does not work and isn't sustainable.

One's final wish to discriminate based on gender is bad for everyone else.

On another level, these people made their fortune in Canada in no small part based on our culture and laws regarding discrimination. While it may not be specific in legislation, the decision made certainly reflects the spirit of our codes.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Then you should have some documentation in the will justifying it. Nothing is stopping you from writing whatever will you want, but if you decide to screw over beneficiaries based on discriminatory reasons, I guess you should anticipate the potential for them to contest it.

But why is that relevant when I'm distributing my money? Heck, I can be totally discriminatory when I allocate how I wish my funds to be passed on. What if I just didn't like one of my kids for no rational reason? Maybe I hate their spouse. That's not a rational reason, and can be totally viewed as discriminatory. But it's still my right to pass on my wealth however I want it to.

Just seems off that the court can just overturn wills based on moral standing.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

But why is that relevant when I'm distributing my money? Heck, I can be totally discriminatory when I allocate how I wish my funds to be passed on. What if I just didn't like one of my kids for no rational reason? Maybe I hate their spouse. That's not a rational reason, and can be totally viewed as discriminatory. But it's still my right to pass on my wealth however I want it to.

Just seems off that the court can just overturn wills based on moral standing.

I think you have a responsibility to distribute your wealth in a fair and reasonable way. If you're going to do it in an obviously unfair way, then you should expect it to be contested. You can do everything in your power to try to pass your wealth on according to your wishes, but I'd expect anyone you were treating unfairly to do everything in their power to right your wrong.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Sliver

I think you have a responsibility to distribute your wealth in a fair and reasonable way. If you're going to do it in an obviously unfair way, then you should expect it to be contested. You can do everything in your power to try to pass your wealth on according to your wishes, but I'd expect anyone you were treating unfairly to do everything in their power to right your wrong.

Do you though? If that's the case, that means the government has a say in how you can distribute your wealth when you die based on what they deem is fair. You now don't have complete control over your own wealth anymore. I'm surprised some people here seem to be ok with that.

Again, I'm not arguing the original story is not being discriminatory, I just think the courts having the ability to change a person's will based on moral standing seems wrong to me.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

But why is that relevant when I'm distributing my money? Heck, I can be totally discriminatory when I allocate how I wish my funds to be passed on. What if I just didn't like one of my kids for no rational reason? Maybe I hate their spouse. That's not a rational reason, and can be totally viewed as discriminatory. But it's still my right to pass on my wealth however I want it to.

Just seems off that the court can just overturn wills based on moral standing.

That's kind of the point here. You are not allowed to be totally discriminatory and it isn't your unlimited right to do whatever you want. Why is discrimination okay for inheritance if it isn't okay elsewhere?

One of the key things I read that I think should be highlighted as well is this:

Originally Posted by https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/victory-for-b-c-sisters-whose-parents-willed-them-tiny-share-of-9m-estate-1.5218792

The brothers both agreed that their parents had failed to meet their "moral obligations" to their daughters, though they argued in court for larger inheritances for themselves. Terry Litt testified that he had tried to convince his mother and father that the wills were unfair, but he was unable to persuade them to make changes.

Even the two brothers agreed that the wills as written were unfair, even if they disagreed on how much of the pot they should get. In the final decision, they still ended up with higher individual inheritance than the girls (20% each for a total of 40%, vs. 15% for each of the girls for a total of 60%)

[troutman]

It is rare that parents don't treat their children equally in their wills. It is even rarer for a Will to be varied in Alberta - it is expensive and difficult to over-turn a Will, and is usually only going to be successful where a parent did not make provision for a dependent child.

Common reasons for unequal distributions:

Estrangement - one child is out of contact with the family for many years; parents may not like child's spouse
Care giver - one child has been the primary care giver for elderly parents
Spendthrift - one child can't handle $ - for example, addiction issues, gambling, incompetent etc. These children can be protected in a discretionary trust rather than disinheriting them, or trusting your other children to look after them
Need - one child may be well off, and others might be struggling financially
Culture/religion - some families want to leave $ to male children only

Without compelling reasons, consider how much family damage could be caused with unequal gifts. Estate litigation can be more ugly than divorce disputes. Parties in a divorce can eventually go their separate ways. Brothers and sisters are always connected.

In Alberta testator's wishes are normally respected - you can do what you want with your $, with only a few limits. Consider though that it is is likely your wealth was built with the direct and indirect support of your parents. What would they have expected for their grandchildren? We will see an enormous wealth transfer when the baby boomers pass on.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Superfraggle

That's kind of the point here. You are not allowed to be totally discriminatory and it isn't your unlimited right to do whatever you want. Why is discrimination okay for inheritance if it isn't okay elsewhere?

One of the key things I read that I think should be highlighted as well is this:



Even the two brothers agreed that the wills as written were unfair, even if they disagreed on how much of the pot they should get. In the final decision, they still ended up with higher individual inheritance than the girls (20% each for a total of 40%, vs. 15% for each of the girls for a total of 60%)

I guess I just don't agree. Again, it's your after tax money. Why does the court get to have a say in what you do with it when you've clearly spelt out how you want it treated? What would even be the point of a will? Just have the government distribute on how they deem should be fair.

[The Yen Man]

So another hypothetical question then. What if the person is still alive but they give a chunk of their wealth to their kids based purely on discriminatory reasons? I've seen a lot of Asian families who give a disproportionate amount to their sons vs. their daughters while they are still alive. Their thinking is, the daughter gets taken care of by the husband, while the son has to take care of his wife and family. Plus they pass on their family name. Can the daughters sue their parents and force them to give them equally?

[Wormius]

I believe the main reason is that it's a special case. The parents' wealth was in part due to the contribution of all family members. The proceedings even showed that the children took a very minimal salary, if any, for their work and the parents were very stingy.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

So another hypothetical question then. What if the person is still alive but they give a chunk of their wealth to their kids based purely on discriminatory reasons? I've seen a lot of Asian families who give a disproportionate amount to their sons vs. their daughters while they are still alive. Their thinking is, the daughter gets taken care of by the husband, while the son has to take care of his wife and family. Plus they pass on their family name. Can the daughters sue their parents and force them to give them equally?

It would be very difficult to over-turn inter vivos gifts - you would have to establish some kind of fraud, undue influence or unjust enrichment. This is probably a technique some families use to avoid wills variation.

Again, I want to emphasize, you are pretty much free to do what you want with your $, with only a few limits and rare exceptions.

[you&me]

Originally Posted by troutman

It would be very difficult to over-turn inter vivos gifts - you would have to establish some kind of fraud, undue influence or unjust enrichment. This is probably a technique some families use to avoid wills variation.

Again, I want to emphasize, you are pretty much free to do what you want with your $, with only a few limits and rare exceptions.

So in your opinion, would the same verdict for this case be found in Alberta?


Edit - another point that was brought up earlier in the thread:

If the courts can dictate "fairness", what's to stop a challenge of a charitable or other philanthropic gift? If the children / direct heirs in a will are short-changed (or left out entirely) in favour of another entity, where do we draw the line at fairness?

It's my opinion that if the brothers in this case accepted that the will was unfair, it was up to them to - privately - make things right, if they chose to do so. Involving the courts in a private family dispute, no matter the optics of fairness or discrimination seems like a very bad idea to me.

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by troutman

It would be very difficult to over-turn inter vivos gifts - you would have to establish some kind of fraud, undue influence or unjust enrichment. This is probably a technique some families use to avoid wills variation.

Again, I want to emphasize, you are pretty much free to do what you want with your $, with only a few limits and rare exceptions.

With my mom being on the side that gets screwed because of traditional old school thinking from her parents, was hoping if this sets some kind of precedent, then maybe she'll have some options in the future. . Jokes aside, stuff like this often drive families apart. A parent who discriminates inheritance based solely on gender is real selfish imo, since they'll be the main reason why their kids' relationships go sour.

[MoneyGuy]

Courts should be able to overturn wills in certain situations. For example, husband has a business and has amassed millions and the wife is home raising five children. She hasn’t had a paying job for 15 years as she’s home with the kids and enabling the husband to build his business.

He takes up with a younger woman and as his new beneficiary she gets everything. Husband dies and his wife gets nothing. Darn right that will should be overturned. That’s an extreme example so I guess the question is where the line should be drawn and in what situations should wills be overturned.

We rely on the courts to determine what’s fair. I believe they will generally do a good job. If I decide to leave more to one child because of gifting while I’m alive and my other child contests that, I believe that should not be overturned. Each situation is unique.

Discrimination due to gender or favouritism should not be overturned if contested.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

Courts should be able to overturn wills in certain situations. For example, husband has a business and has amassed millions and the wife is home raising five children. She hasn’t had a paying job for 15 years as she’s home with the kids and enabling the husband to build his business.

He takes up with a younger woman and as his new beneficiary she gets everything. Husband dies and his wife gets nothing. Darn right that will should be overturned. That’s an extreme example so I guess the question is where the line should be drawn and in what situations should wills be overturned.

We rely on the courts to determine what’s fair. I believe they will generally do a good job. If I decide to leave more to one child because of gifting while I’m alive and my other child contests that, I believe that should not be overturned. Each situation is unique.

Discrimination due to gender or favouritism should not be overturned if contested.

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

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Wormius

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

I was assuming he left her to take up with the new one so no divorce.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by MoneyGuy

I was assuming he left her to take up with the new one so no divorce.

Wife should file Matrimonial Property Claim asap.

Also, most matrimonial assets are held jointly, and could not form part of spouse's estate. That would all get sorted out in a separation agreement or trial.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by you&me

So in your opinion, would the same verdict for this case be found in Alberta?

One of the stories I read on this yesterday noted that BC's laws on wills and feels is unique in Canada, so odds are that the verdict in BC would probably be unique.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I guess I just don't agree. Again, it's your after tax money. Why does the court get to have a say in what you do with it when you've clearly spelt out how you want it treated? What would even be the point of a will? Just have the government distribute on how they deem should be fair.

Why use a Will if you don't want your money put through the legal system? Who is forcing you to use a Will bound by law?