B.C. Court Intervenes to Uphold Bequest To Charity

It is common for will-makers to make bequests to charitable organizations in their wills. But what if the charity that is named as a beneficiary no longer exists at the date of the will-maker’s death? Over time, charities may be dissolved or cease to exist, change names or structures, or otherwise be replaced by successor organizations.  If a will-maker intends to make a charitable bequest, but the charity named in the will no longer exists at their death (or no longer exists in that name or form), what happens?

This issue was recently considered by the B.C. Supreme Court.  In Galloway Estate v. British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals 2021 BCSC 413, the deceased left shares of her estate to certain charitable organizations “that are in existence as at the date of [her] death,” including “Pacific Coast Public Television Association” (“PCPTA”).

PCPTA was registered as a Canadian charity so that persons could donate to the commercial-free educational channel, KCTS 9, or PBS Channel 9. The problem was that PCPTA (the beneficiary named in the will) was dissolved in 2018, and therefore that particular entity no longer existed at the deceased’s death.  KCTS also had changed its name to Cascade Public Media (“CPM”), and CPM continued to operate KCTS 9.

The executor needed directions from the court:

  1. Does the gift to benefit PBS/KCTS 9 fail because PCPTA no longer exists; or
  2. Can the PBS gift go to CPM instead?

The court applied the “cy-pres doctrine.”  The cy-pres doctrine determines what happens when property that has been dedicated to charitable purposes cannot be applied in the manner intended by the donor. Where the purposes or objects of a charitable trust have become impossible or impracticable to accomplish, the court may intervene and alter the purposes of the trust. The courts may implement modernized or modified objects that are “as near as possible” to the original purposes. The order must depart from the intentions of the settlor only to the extent required to remove the problem.

If it is not impossible or impractical (which the courts interpret broadly) to accomplish the purpose of the charitable trust, then the court cannot intervene.

In Galloway, the court concluded that the gift would go to CPM. The deceased intended to benefit the PBS channel, and CPM was now the entity that performed that role. CPM assumed responsibility for PCPTA’s obligations.

The court distinguished another case, Re Eberwein Estate 2012 BCSC 250. In that case, the deceased made a gift to a charity called “Aid to Animals in Distress,” which she donated to during her lifetime. The charity ceased to exist prior to the deceased making her will and her death. That gift was not subject to the cy-pres document (and the gift failed) because the court was unable to determine an alternative charity to which the gift should go.

If it appears that a specific charitable bequest may fail because the named charity no longer exists, in certain circumstances the court may intervene and give effect to the will-maker’s charitable intention by modifying the will to, for example, make the bequest to a successor charity, or a nearly identical charity.

B.C. Man Fails to Update Life Insurance Beneficiary Designation From Ex-Spouse to Current Spouse

When making changes to an estate plan, people sometimes overlook their direct beneficiary designations, for example on life insurance policies, RRSPs or TFSAs. You don’t want to make changes to a will, transfer assets into joint ownership with right of survivorship, and settle assets into a trust, but neglect to update a beneficiary designation. The result may be an unwelcomed surprise to your loved ones, when a beneficiary designation that you have failed to update provides a payout that was clearly not what you intended, and which is inconsistent with the rest of your estate plan.

This was the case in a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court released this week. In Knowles v. LeBlanc 2021 BCSC 482, the Court considered competing claims over the proceeds of a life insurance policy. The dispute was between the deceased’s ex-wife, who was named as the sole beneficiary under the policy, and the deceased’s long-time spouse at his date of death (described as the “disappointed beneficiary”).

The deceased obtained the life insurance policy when he was still married to his first wife, and the records indicated that no change of beneficiary had ever been filed. He separated from his first wife in the late 1980s, and their divorce was finalized in May 1991.  He moved in with his current spouse around 1993, and they lived in an exclusive common law relationship until his death in 2019.

The deceased continued the monthly payments on the life insurance policy with automated withdrawals from a joint account which he held with his new spouse. The benefit under the policy was $100,000.  Upon the deceased’s death, his spouse received the proceeds of every other life insurance policy that he held, as well as all of his other assets (by right of survivorship).

The Court first considered the intentions of the deceased. The evidence was clear that the deceased maintained feelings of hostility toward his ex-wife. He also became estranged from the two children that he shared with her. It was also clear that he intended to change the beneficiary designation to his spouse and thought he had done so.

While his ex-wife argued that there was no evidence of an intention to change the designation, the Court did not accept this in light of the ex-wife’s complete absence from his life after the divorce, his hostility toward her, and the circumstances which showed a wish to leave all of his property to his spouse.

The Court held that a consent order which was entered in the divorce proceedings involving the deceased and his ex-wife did not operate to prevent his ex-wife from claiming the proceeds of the life insurance policy. It did not include language that the parties clearly relinquished all interest in each other’s estate.

The spouse argued that if the ex-wife was to receive the insurance proceedings then this would result in unjust enrichment. To establish unjust enrichment, the plaintiff must show (1) an enrichment of the defendant; (2) a corresponding deprivation of the plaintiff; and (3) an absence of juristic reason (such as a contract) for the enrichment.

In Knowles, the spouse suffered a deprivation, as the premiums of the policy were paid from an account that she held jointly with the deceased for many years, and she believed that the deceased had changed the beneficiary designation to her. The ex-spouse would be enriched if she received the proceedings. There was no juristic reason for the enrichment, and there was no basis in the parties’ expectations or public policy to rebut the spouse’s recovery.

The court allowed the spouse’s claim in unjust enrichment, and imposed a remedial constructive trust over the insurance proceedings. The insurance company was directed to pay the insurance proceeds to the spouse.

The court was able to “fix” the deceased’s oversight in these particular circumstances.  The spouse had good facts on her side, including good evidence of the deceased’s intention.  This may not always be the case for a “disappointed beneficiary.”  This also resulted in time, stress and uncertainty for his spouse, which would have been avoided if he had properly updated the beneficiary designation.

B.C. Supreme Court finds that Deceased had Two Spouses Entitled to Share Estate

The recent decision of the B.C. Supreme Court in Boughton v. Widner Estate 2021 BCSC 325 discusses a number of important estate litigation issues in the context of an unusual fact scenario: the deceased had a second “secret” family.

The deceased was a victim of homicide.  He did not leave a will. At the time of his death, the deceased was married (to Ms. Widner) and had two children. At the same time, he was in a long term relationship (with Ms. Boughton), which the parties at trial agreed was a “marriage-like relationship” of at least two years. He also had two children with Ms. Boughton.

Ms. Boughton knew that the deceased was married, but the deceased told her he would eventually obtain a divorce and marry her. Ms. Widner had no knowledge of the deceased’s relationship with Ms. Boughton.  The deceased was living a double life, telling Ms. Widner that he was working part of the week on the other side of Vancouver island, when he was actually spending time with Ms. Boughton and their children.

The headline of this article in the Vancouver Sun nicely summarizes the salacious circumstances: “Secret family and wife battle in court over dead Hells Angels prospect’s assets” https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/secret-family-and-wife-battle-in-court-over-dead-hells-angels-prospects-assets

The evidence at trial was that the deceased was a member of the Hells Angels. Ms. Boughton claimed that the deceased told her many times that he paid for several properties that were registered Ms. Widner’s name. Ms Boughton sought orders that the deceased’s estate consisted of half of the value of the properties held in Ms. Widner’s name.

This decision addresses a number of important issues:

A person can have multiple spouses. The Court held that a deceased person can have two spouses at the same time for the purpose of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. In particular, a person can be in a marriage-like relationship with someone who is still married to someone else. The Court declared that Ms. Boughton was also the spouse of the deceased, and so the deceased had two spouses at the time of his death. Ms. Boughton and Ms. Widner are each entitled to half of the deceased’s estate.

Ms. Widner argued that this cannot be the case, as it would sanction polygamy, which is an offence under the Criminal Code. However, it was previously decided that the criminal law prohibits “conjugal union” or “multiple marriages”, but does not extend to “conjugal relationships” or “common law cohabitation” (i.e. marriage like relationships).

Statements made by the deceased as to beneficial ownership of assets may be admitted as evidence. The Court considered whether statements by the deceased were admissible for the truth of their contents. The deceased allegedly made statements to Ms. Boughton that he paid for properties, even though they were registered in Ms. Widner’s name.   The general rule is that hearsay evidence is not admissible for the truth of its contents. However, hearsay statements may be admitted if it can be established that the evidence is necessary and reliable. In this case, the deceased was dead and so the requirement that the evidence be necessary was satisfied. The court was satisfied that some of the deceased’s statements were reliable. The judge did not accept that the deceased’s statements that he paid for all of the properties was reliable, as other evidence showed this was not the case.

An Estate may be entitled to an award for unjust enrichment. The Court found that the deceased contributed $150,000 towards the properties that were registered in Ms. Widner’s name, which resulted in an unjust enrichment to Ms. Widner. There was no juristic reason for Ms. Widner to retain the benefit of the deceased’s contributions. As a result, the deceased’s estate was awarded $150,000 from Ms. Widner.

Estates in the News: Larry King’s Will Contested and a $5 Million Bequest to a Dog

There have been two interesting estate-related stories in the news this week.

Larry King’s Widow Contests his Will

First, the widow of TV host Larry King has gone to court to contest a handwritten will that purportedly leaves Mr. King’s$2 Million estate to his five children. She alleges that one of his children exerted undue influence on him, that he was “of questionable mental capacity” when the will was signed, and that he made a previous will in 2015 in which she was named executor.

Larry King had filed for divorce in 2019, but his widow claims that he was not actually pursing the divorce, and in fact they were working toward a possible reconciliation.

More can be read here: https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-56095825 and https://people.com/tv/larry-kings-widow-shawn-contests-his-will/

If this case arose in British Columbia, Mr. King’s widow would have various remedies, some of which would depend upon whether she was a “spouse” at his death. She could argue that the will was invalid as a result of undue influence or lack of capacity. If the handwritten will was valid, then she could seek to vary the will to make provision for her only if she was Mr. King’s spouse at the date of death. The separation may have terminated her standing as a “spouse”. However, if they began to live together again for at least 90 days and the primary purpose for doing so was to reconcile, then she would have regained her standing as “spouse” and could seek to vary the will. If she was not a “spouse” at death, then she could bring a family law claim against Mr. King’s estate (or continue the divorce proceedings that were ongoing at his death).

Dog Inherits $5 Million

A businessman in Nashville who died last year stipulated in his will that upon his death his assets, worth an estimated $5 Million, would be transferred into a trust for the benefit of his 8-year-old border collie, Lulu. The will names a friend as Lulu’s official caretaker, and the funds are to be used to pay Lulu’s reasonable expenses. It is unclear who will receive the remaining monies upon Lulu’s death.

More can be read here: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/13/us/dog-border-collie-lulu-5-million-dollar-trust-owner-trnd/index.html and https://people.com/pets/man-leaves-5-million-to-his-dog-in-will/

In British Columbia, will-makers have the autonomy to distribute their estate by will as they see fit.  If they want to make an “unconventional” bequest or provision in a will, then that is their choice to make. However, there are potential avenues to challenge such a bequest. There may be a challenge to the validity of the will, on the basis that the will-maker lacked capacity, did not understand what they were doing, or was unduly influenced. A child or spouse (if there is one) may also bring a claim to vary the will on the basis that it does not make adequate provision for them.

Case Comment: B.C. Court Dismisses Attempt by Estranged Spouse to Set Aside Property Transfer and Vary Will

I am often contacted by executors or beneficiaries of an estate when they have been served with what they consider to be a “nuisance claim”. Unfortunately, the death of a loved one may present an opportunity for others to bring unmeritorious claims. The estate may be large enough to attract claims that should never have been made, and the person who would have the best evidence to oppose the claims (the deceased person) is dead.

A typical example is someone surfacing and claiming to be the deceased’s spouse for the purpose of bringing a wills variation claim or other claim. This person may be a former spouse of the deceased, a casual romantic partner, a roommate, or even a stranger. I have previously written about the test to determine whether someone has standing as a “spouse” to bring a wills variation claim here.

The B.C. Supreme Court recently dismissed a dubious claim by a person claiming to be a current spouse of the deceased (but was found not to be one) in Lee v. Chau 2021 BCSC 70. In Lee, the deceased transferred his real property into joint tenancy with his adult children as joint tenants. His children said that he intended the transfer to be a gift, that their father’s relationship with the plaintiff ended many years before, and their marriage was a sham. The plaintiff argued that she was the deceased’s wife for 19 years. She claimed that the defendants held the property in resulting trust for her benefit, and she also sought to vary the deceased’s will to make provision for her.

The Will included the following rather scathing clause explaining why the deceased made no provision for the plaintiff:

“I am giving nothing to NU LEE [the plaintiff] whom I married on May 30, 1995, as although we were married, she refused to consummate our marriage or live with me as husband and wife and on March 1, 1996, she left me and returned to Taiwan, China and has not returned. I believe that she married me for the sole purpose of facilitating her entry into Canada as a landed immigrant. She has never and refused to consummate our marriage and we have at no time lived together as husband and wife relationship”.

The Court concluded that the deceased understood the effect of transferring property into joint tenancy, and that by doing so he intended to gift his property to his children. The Court gave clear indication that it did not think much of the plaintiff’s attempt to claim an interest in the property. In addition to quoting the above passage from the will, they relied upon the following evidence that the plaintiff was estranged from the deceased:

  • The plaintiff’s extended absence from the property for many years before the deceased’s death;
  • Her full-­time residence outside Canada for more than three years before his death;
  • Her ignorance of his terminal illness;
  • Their lack of contact immediately before his death, and
  • The fact that he died without her knowledge.

The Court also held that the plaintiff was not the “spouse” of the deceased at the date of death, and therefore did not have standing to bring a wills variation claim. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendants’ costs. While the Court did not use the words “nuisance claim” or say that the claim was a frivolous or vexatious one, the judge was clearly not impressed by the plaintiff’s attempts to come back and try to make a claim against the property and the deceased’s estate.  This decision confirms that the B.C. Courts are fully prepared to dismiss claims that they consider to be without merit.

What Happens in B.C. when Spouses die Simultaneously?

Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for spouses (or other family members) to die in a “common disaster” or tragedy, in which they die at the same time or in circumstances that make it uncertain which of them survived the other. One spouse may also survive the other, but then die mere days later (perhaps from injuries caused by the “common disaster”). If the two spouses have different estate plans, then the question arises: how are each of the estates to be distributed? This may be an issue when dealing with multiple marriages and blended families, where perhaps each spouse has left all or part of their individual estate to the other spouse and their own children, but not to their stepchildren. This arises not just with respect to their wills, but also with respect to jointly registered property, which carries with it a right of survivorship.

Fortunately, the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (“WESA”) simplifies this issue in British Columbia.

WESA provides that if two or more persons die at the same time or in circumstances that make it uncertain which of them survived the other, unless a contrary intention appears in an instrument, rights to property must be determined as if each had survived the other. If two or more persons held property as joint tenants, then unless a contrary intention appears in an instrument, for the purpose of determining rights to property, each person is deemed to have held the property or joint account as tenants in common with the other or with each of the others.

WESA goes one step further: a person who does not survive a deceased person by five days, or a longer period provided in an instrument, is conclusively deemed to have died before the deceased person for all purposes affecting the estate of the deceased person. If two persons hold property as joint tenants, or hold a joint account, and it cannot be established that one of them survived the other by five days, then one half of the property passes as if one person survived the other person by five days, and one half of the property passes as if the other person had survived the first person by five days.  Under the wording of WESA, the five-day survival requirement cannot be shortened in a will, but it can be extended.

As a result, in these circumstances each person’s assets (or their “half” of joint property) forms part of their estate and will be distributed as per their estate plan.

The above provisions do not apply to certain insurance monies, which are dealt with under the Insurance Act. For example, unless a contract or declaration provides otherwise, if the person whose life is insured and a beneficiary die at the same time or in circumstances rendering it uncertain which of them survived the other, the insurance money is payable as if the beneficiary had predeceased the person whose life is insured.

Family of Deceased Fights $1.5M bequest to the SPCA

A woman in Vancouver is contesting a bequest made in her great-aunt’s will in favor of the SPCA. A recent CBC story on the lawsuit can be found here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/vancouver-family-heading-to-court-in-1-5m-inheritance-fight-with-spca-1.5803925

The deceased left the residue of her estate to the SPCA. The estate includes a valuable home in the Point Grey neighborhood of Vancouver. As a result of skyrocketing property values, it is estimated that the SPCA stands to receive approximately $1.5M from the estate.

The plaintiff is not the spouse or child of the deceased, so she does not have standing to vary the will. Instead, she wants to have a handwritten note composed by the deceased on her 99th birthday (in 2017) admitted to probate as reflecting the true final testamentary intentions of the deceased. The note purports to limit the amount of any gift to the SPCA to $100,000.

Section 58 of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act [“WESA”] allows the court to admit to probate a document or record that does not meet the technical requirements of a will. I have discussed this section in other posts, including one found here. This section would permit a handwritten note to be fully effective as though it had been made as part of the will.

In this case, the handwritten note is unsigned, undated and unwitnessed, and the deceased did not take any steps in the three years after writing the note to change her will to make it consistent with the note, so it will be interesting to see if it meets the test under s. 58 of WESA. The SPCA has also raised concerns about the deceased’s testamentary capacity when the note was written. If she had lacked capacity at the time, the handwritten note would not be effective as a testamentary instrument.

The plaintiff says that the SPCA is “greedy” for attempting to enforce the terms of the will, while the SPCA has called this a “challenging situation” for all parties.  The trial is set for January 2021.  However, as most estate litigation claims are settled in advance of trial through mediation and negotiation to avoid the expense and uncertainty of proceeding to trial, we may never know the final result.

What Rights do Disinherited Stepchildren have in British Columbia?

Blended families, second (or third or fourth) marriages, and stepchildren are now a common occurrence. Estate planning for blended families with stepchildren is a delicate issue, and the source of many estate litigation disputes.

For example, we often see the following scenario: A will-maker has children from a first marriage. The children are now independent adults. The will-maker re-marries. He makes a will leaving everything or substantially everything to his new spouse. The new spouse promises to make a will leaving what is left upon her death to the will-maker’s children. What rights do the children have, and when should they assert them?

There are a number of potential issues here.

First, if a will-maker in British Columbia fails to make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the will-maker’s spouse or child, the spouse or child may bring a claim to vary the will. However, a “child” does not include a stepchild who has not been formally adopted. As a result, the children in the above scenario could apply to vary their father’s will, but they would not be able to wait and bring a claim to vary their stepmother’s will after her death.

What about the stepmother’s promise that she would make a will leaving everything to her husband’s children? Can the children rely upon that promise as the basis of a claim?

The children may have a remedy if their father and their stepmother made “mutual wills”. When two persons agree to make mutual wills, they agree that once the wills are made that no changes may be made by either party without the other party’s consent, and when one person dies the surviving party cannot change the disposition made in their will. The fact that the father and stepmother had identical wills at the time of the father’s death (which would be “mirror wills” ) is not enough. There must be clear and unequivocal evidence of an enforceable agreement between the parties that the survivor cannot not change their will after the death of the first person.

If the parties did not have “mutual wills”, and the stepmother has simply made a promise to make a will leaving her estate to the children upon her death, then the children may still have a remedy. If the children rely upon the stepmother’s promise and as a result agree not to bring a wills variation claim in relation to their father’s estate (because they will eventually receive the assets any event), then the court may find that there was an enforceable agreement between the parties, or that the children are otherwise entitled to enforcement of the stepmother’s promise.

All of this may be further complicated if the stepmother has her own children, mixes the father’s estate with her own assets, or spends or gifts away the father’s assets during her lifetime, and so the children may be better off making a wills variation claim at the time of their father’s death to avoid the future uncertainty and risk.  A child in this situation will want to carefully consider their rights (and strongly consider obtaining legal advice) at the time of their parent’s death, rather than waiting until the stepparent’s death.

B.C. Court Upholds Contract Requiring One Party to Leave Estate to Other Parties

What if you enter into an agreement with someone, for example to provide them with services, based on a promise from that person that they will leave something to you in their will, but then you find out that the person has made a new will which makes no provision for you?  Is the agreement enforceable, and do you have to wait until after the person’s death to take steps to enforce your rights?

This issue arose in the recent case of  Munro v. James 2020 BCSC 1348. In Munro, the parties were acquaintances in the equestrian community. Ms. James (one of the defendants) owned a large farm property which included ponies. In 2007, the parties entered into an agreement whereby the plaintiffs would move onto Ms. James’ farm, build a home there, and look after Ms. James’ ponies for the remainder of her life.  In exchange, the plaintiffs were to inherit Ms. James’ estate when she died.  The agreement was put in writing.

In 2017, Ms. James made a new will that left her entire estate to another acquaintance, instead of the plaintiffs.  In 2018, Ms. James sought to terminate the agreement on the bases that the plaintiffs breached their obligations.  The plaintiffs sued.

The judge did not accept that the plaintiffs had breached the agreement in any of the numerous ways alleged by Ms. James.   The agreement remained in force and Ms. James was not entitled to terminate it. The plaintiffs were able to sue for “anticipatory breach”, where a party repudiates their contractual obligation before it falls due.  In other words, the plaintiffs did not have to wait until Ms. James’ death before they brought an action.  By changing her will to exclude the plaintiffs, she rejected the obligations of the contract and the plaintiffs were entitled to sue immediately.

The next issue was the remedy. The plaintiffs (as the non-defaulting party) had the right to elect as to whether to treat the contract as continuing (and they may seek specific performance – requiring Ms. James to fulfill her obligations under the agreement) or as ended (and sue for damages).

In this case, the plaintiffs did not accept the repudiation and wanted the contract to continue.  The Court had to figure out the appropriate remedy for the unusual circumstance where Ms. James failed to fulfill a term that upon her death, the plaintiffs would inherit her estate but Ms. James was still alive.

The Court ordered that the entire residue of Ms. James’ estate on her death, after payment of taxes and reasonable funeral and testamentary expenses, is payable to the plaintiffs. Further, Ms. James was not to dispose of or encumber the farm property without the consent of the plaintiffs or a court order. The plaintiffs were no longer obligated to perform services on the farm property pursuant to the agreement.

The Munro case is a good reminder that you should think carefully before entering into an agreement with a term requiring you to make a will to benefit another person.  As long as the other elements of a contract are present (i.e. offer, acceptance, consideration, etc…), this type of agreement is enforceable in B.C., and you may be put in the unpleasant situation of losing any testamentary autonomy to decide what will happen to your estate.  Further, the party expecting to benefit from such an agreement does not have to wait until your death before commencing an action, if the beneficiary becomes aware that you no longer intend to abide by the terms of the agreement.

B.C. Court of Appeal upholds existence of secret trust

If a person does not make a will (i.e. the deceased dies intestate), then the B.C. Wills, Estates and Succession Act sets out who will receive their estate. But what if the deceased person instructs the person entitled to receive their estate that the assets are actually to go to someone else? If the person entitled to receive the estate assets accepts the instructions from the deceased person, then a secret trust may be created.

In the recent case of Bergler v. Odenthal 2020 BCCA 175, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld a trial decision which held that a secret trust existed, with the result that the person who would have received all of the deceased’s assets on an intestacy actually held the assets in trust for another person. I discussed the trial decision in a previous post found here.

Full disclosure: I was counsel for the successful plaintiff/respondent in this case at trial and on appeal.

The deceased had told her spouse (who would receive her assets on an intestacy) that she wanted her assets to go to her niece, who did not have a career or a home and was hoping to go back to school. The deceased did not have a will, and instead relied upon her spouse to do what she instructed.

On appeal, one of the key issues was timing of distribution. The niece argued that the deceased instructed her spouse that he was to deliver her assets to the niece when the spouse started a new relationship (which had happened before trial). The spouse argued that the deceased had “clarified” that the niece was to receive the assets only upon his death and not before. The trial judge did not accept that the deceased made this clarification. It also wasn’t consistent with the deceased’s wish that her niece receive her assets to get on a better financial footing and continue her education. If that was the purpose of the trust, then it would not make sense to postpone the niece’s receipt of assets until the spouse’s death, which may not happen for many years.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not erred in finding that a secret trust had been created, and that the spouse had accepted the obligations of the trust in conversations with the deceased in the last days of her life.

The spouse also took the position that if he held the deceased’s estate in trust, then the deceased’s interest in a piece of property that was registered in joint tenancy with him did not form part of her estate. When a property in British Columbia is held in joint tenancy, then upon the death of one of the joint owners their registered interest is received by the surviving joint owners by right of survivorship. As a result, the interest in jointly held property often does not form part of the deceased’s estate (for example, for the purpose of calculating probate fees).

However, the Court of Appeal confirmed that as a matter of law, the creation of the secret trust severed the joint tenancy, and the deceased’s interest in the property, even though registered in joint ownership, formed part of the trust and the beneficiary (her niece) was entitled to that interest.

As noted in my previous post which discussed the trial decision, it is very risky for a testator to make the deliberate decision to forgo preparing a will, and instead provide verbal instructions to the person that would otherwise be entitled to receive the estate on an intestacy regarding what you want done with your estate. There is a very real risk that this person may deny receiving such instructions and may deny the existence of a trust.

If you are a beneficiary (by way of intestacy or under a will) and the testator provides you with instructions regarding the assets that you will receive upon their death, exercise caution. Even silence may constitute acceptance of the trust obligation. The courts take the view that if a testator makes a request of this nature, you should be bound to say something if you intend to reject the instructions and seek to claim the assets as your own after the deceased’s death.