Courts use the equitable remedy of Rectification to fix certain errors in a Will. Exactly what evidence will be considered and the types of mistakes fixed gives rise to uncertainty and litigation. The author reviews some of these issues and recent case law on the topic.
Can you imagine burying a spouse and then being sued for support by his mistress? For those who believe in primacy on marriage and that marriage obligates its partners to fidelity, the idea of rewarding a mistress to a portion of the family’s an inheritance is unjust. Others argue that financial obligations should flow from the intensity and duration of life partner relationships regardless of the partners' marital status. What do the courts think?
The Illinois Supreme Court held that the testamentary clause disinherting a potential beneficiary for marrying outside the faith was valid. The test was whether the provision was capable of producing harm that its enforcement would be contrary to the public interest. The Illinois Supreme Court upheld the Will because they placed a premium on the right of individuals to decide what happens to their assets after they die. They disagreed with the lower courts who suggested that the clause in question was a restraint of marriage
Very often a parent appoints the favourite child to manage the parent’s property (“power of attorney”) or be the executor under the parent’s will. Perhaps the child is honest but has no idea what obligations are involved with being an attorney for property or as an executor and fails to keep proper records. Perhaps that child is very dishonest and the lack of records is simply his way to hide the improper use of his parent’s money. So what typically happens?
Private international law and forum non conveniens is complicated. It is really too complicated to properly address is a simple blog. But, let’s consider this as wetting your appetite on the subject. So let me tell you what happened and let’s see if you come to the same conclusion as Justice Hoilett of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Towne Meadow Development Corp. v. Israel Development Bank the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to determine the appropriate location for litigating a dispute. A Canadian construction company hoped to build in Israel. The Israeli bank granted it credit. A shareholder of the company allegedly pledged company assets to secure the loan. The bank then called in its line of credit for repayment wanting access to the assets. The builder suggested that Ontario law applied and that the court case should be heard in Ontario. The Israeli bank disagreed.
Americans sued in Ontario are at risk. Sometimes these defendants ignore Ontario law suits because they have no assets in Canada. That may be unwise. Ontario courts, under certain circumstances, will assume jurisdiction and grant judgments against American defendants. Such judgments may be enforceable in the US under private international law and the principles of comity. Americans named as defendants in Ontario litigation should contact competent lawyers in both jurisdiction to strategize about how to deal with litigation commenced in a court in Canada.
Every week clients approach me to take their case on a contingency fee basis. I most often decline; let me tell you why. To begin with, let’s define our terms. A contingency fee is when the lawyer is paid if and only if the plaintiff wins or there is a settlement. If the client doesn't get any money then the lawyer doesn't get paid a fee.
So if you suspect that the power of attorney has done something wrong what are some of the things you should look for? The first thing you should know is that a power of attorney has both a common law and statutory duty to keep proper records of all transactions involving the property.
A creditor may enforce a judgment for the payment or recovery of money by garnishment. Garnishment is a procedure whereby moneys owing to the debtor (garnishee) by a third person attach directly to the creditor (garnishor). Garnishment attaches to moneys held in a RRSP. In life, there is little question that RRSP’s vest in the owner of the RRSP. At death, section 2(1) of the Estates Administration Act states that any real and personal property of a person that vests in that person during life, is transferred to the personal representative of that person at death, regardless of whether the property is disposed of by will or any other testamentary disposition.
Executors often want to buy assets belonging to an estate. Beneficiaries often suspect the executors of wrong doing. So I often am asked whether it’s legal for an executor to buy an asset from the estate. The short answer is maybe, possibly, but not usually. it would be prudent to for all the beneficiaries to obtain independent legal advice. Furthermore, the purchase price should be somewhat more then fair market value. With all these arrows in his/her quiver the trustee might be well advised to seek preapproval of the sale from the court by bringing an application for the opinion, advice and direction of the court under Rule 14.05(3)(d), and under section 60 of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23.