5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Wills Variation Claims (16:VII)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Wills Variation Claims (16:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 16:40, 4 October 2017
, 16:40, 4 October 2017Updated according to 2017 edition
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) (Updated according to 2017 edition) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== A. Application Under the Act == | == A. Application Under the Act == | ||
WESA gives the court the power to vary a will. '''Only the spouse of the | WESA gives the court the power to vary a will. '''Only the spouse of the will-maker or the will-maker’s children can commence an action to vary a will.''' However, it should be noted that in the situation of a common law spouses, one spouse can unilaterally terminate a relationship and thereby remove the will from the variation provisions in WESA. On the other hand, for married spouses, the spousal relationship can only be terminated by divorce. Please see Chapter Three: Family Law for more information regarding divorces. The '''limitation period''' for commencing an action to vary a will is '''180 days''' from the grant of probate, per s 61(1)(a). | ||
A | A wills variation action is commenced by a claim that the will-maker failed to “make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the will-maker’s spouse or children” (WESA, s 60). | ||
When determining what constitutes adequate provision in a will, courts have considered the following: | When determining what constitutes adequate provision in a will, courts have considered the following: | ||
*actual need, which varies with age and dependency; | *actual need, which varies with age and dependency; | ||
*justifiable expectation based upon a dependency upon the | *justifiable expectation based upon a dependency upon the will-maker or an actual contribution made by the claimant to the will-maker’s estate; | ||
* | *will-maker’s intention and reasons for making his or her will; and | ||
*the size of the | *the size of the will-maker’s estate. | ||
See ''Lukie v Helgason & Lukie'' (1976), 26 RFL 164 (questioned) and ''Newstead v Newstead Estate'' (1996), 11 ETR (2d) 236 (BCSC) for detailed discussions of the above factors. | See ''Lukie v Helgason & Lukie'' (1976), 26 RFL 164 (questioned) and ''Newstead v Newstead Estate'' (1996), 11 ETR (2d) 236 (BCSC) for detailed discussions of the above factors. | ||
The Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''Tataryn v Tataryn Estate'' (1994), 93 BCLR (2d) 145 provides a different focus for the determination of a wills variation claim. This is the leading authority in British Columbia on | The Supreme Court of Canada decision in ''Tataryn v Tataryn Estate'' (1994), 93 BCLR (2d) 145 provides a different focus for the determination of a wills variation claim. This is the leading authority in British Columbia on wills variation. The court considered the following factors in deciding what constitutes an “adequate, just, and equitable” provision in a will: | ||
*the | *the will-maker’s '''legal obligations''' – maintenance and property allocations which the law would support during the will-maker’s lifetime; and | ||
*the | *the will-maker’s '''moral obligations''' – society’s reasonable expectations, based on community standards, of what a judicious person would do in the circumstances. | ||
In the more recent case of | In the more recent case of ''Dunsdon v Dunsdon'' (2012) BCSC 1274 (CanLII) [''Dunsdon''], the court provides a list of overlapping considerations that "have been accepted as informing the existence and strength of a testator's moral duty to independent children: | ||
*Relationship between the testator and claimant, including abandonment, neglect and estrangement by one or the other | *Relationship between the testator and claimant, including abandonment, neglect and estrangement by one or the other | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
:'''NOTE:''' See ''Gosbjorn v Hadley'' 2008 BCSC 219 for a list of factors used by the courts to determine if there is a marriage-like relationship. | :'''NOTE:''' See ''Gosbjorn v Hadley'' 2008 BCSC 219 for a list of factors used by the courts to determine if there is a marriage-like relationship. More recently, see the discussion in ''Connor Estate'', 2016 BCSC 1934. | ||
:'''NOTE:''' In ''B.H. v J.H.'', 2015 BCSC 1551, the BC Supreme Court varied the husband’s will so that the wife, who was separated from but who has not divorced the husband, was entitled to part of the husband’s estate. This significantly deviated from what the wife would have received if they had divorced immediately before the husband’s death. | |||
== C. Exclusion of Potential Beneficiaries == | == C. Exclusion of Potential Beneficiaries == | ||
'''A | '''A will-maker who wishes to exclude a spouse or child should state precisely why the person is being “disinherited,” or why they are less than “adequately” provided for. LSLAP’s policy is not to draft a will where the will-maker wishes to exclude a spouse or child, or unevenly divide the assets between children. Such clients should be referred to a private lawyer, unless the supervising lawyer gives approval.''' | ||
As per section 60 of WESA, the court is not bound by the will-maker’s decision and reasons, but will consider them. Therefore, the will-maker is not assured of success in his or her attempt to exclude or less than adequately provide for a spouse or child. For more detail, see above – Part A. | |||
The chances of the | The chances of the will-maker’s will being upheld will be greater if the will-maker provides '''reasonable and rational reasons for the exclusion'''. For example, where the will-maker has already given the person substantial benefits during her or his lifetime, where the reason is based upon the person’s character, or on the relationship between the will-maker and the potential claimant, the court will be more likely to uphold the will-maker’s wishes. | ||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-22}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters15-22}} | ||
