League and Williams Lawyers

Tag: estoppel

  • Stepchildren Challenging a Will: Estoppel if Your Biological Parent Gifts Their Estate to Your Stepparent

    Stepchildren Challenging a Will: Estoppel if Your Biological Parent Gifts Their Estate to Your Stepparent

    In BC, courts can rule a will unfair and have it revised – or varied – if it does not make ‘adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support’ of the will-maker’s spouse or children. The Courts have the authority to prevent the disinheritance of spouses and children of will writers without sufficient cause. But, what about stepchildren? According to the Wills, Estates and Succession Act (WESA), a child is ‘a natural birth child or a legally adopted child’. Unless the stepparent has adopted a stepchild, WESA does not recognize them as a child.

    It’s clear that a stepchild cannot apply to vary their stepparent’s will under WESA. However, there are other ways that stepchildren can challenge a will. These scenarios can arise if:

    Estoppel for Your Biological Parent Gifting Their Estate to Your Stepparent

    If a stepparent unfairly disinherits them, stepchildren lack the legal standing to directly request a variation of the will

    Estoppel is a legal argument used to prevent a party from breaking a promise to benefit themselves. In the context of stepchildren challenging a will, estoppel can stop a stepparent from receiving more of an estate than their spouse intended. A parent might agree to gift the entirety of their estate to a spouse because the spouse promised to include their stepchild in their own will. If the spouse later changes their will to contradict their promise, the party impacted by the broken promise may be able to make an estoppel claim against the stepparent’s estate.

    In order to have a successful claim for proprietary estoppel, the following must be present:

    • A promise is made,
    • That promise is reasonably relied on,
    • That promise is unfairly broken; and,
    • This causes detriment.

    An Example of Proprietary Estoppel

    Let’s examine a scenario that illustrates how a proprietary estoppel claim may arise. Chris is a man who has a daughter named Deb. He marries Jane, who becomes Deb’s stepmother. Chris plans to leave his estate to Jane if she outlives him, and then wants the property to pass to Deb once Jane and Chris have passed away. Chris gifts the whole estate to Jane because she has promised to include Deb in her own will. This should ensure that Deb will inherit indirectly from Chris’s estate. Deb trusts this pledge and relies on it reasonably. She chooses not to dispute the gift, because she doesn’t expect to be disinherited. Following Chris’s death, Jane breaks her promise, changing her will to pass the entire estate to her own child. Deb can no longer dispute the gift from her father’s estate, since 180 days have elapsed since his passing.

    However, Deb may have a valid claim to receive the assets that were passed from Chris’s estate to Jane. If she can demonstrate the presence of the components of a proprietary estoppel claim in her circumstances, the Courts may vary Chris’s will.

    Children and adults who have relied on a promise from their stepparent concerning their natural parent’s estate and suffered resulting loss should speak to an experienced estate lawyer as soon as possible. An experienced estate lawyer can support you in making a claim to vary a will.

    Have a question about estate disputes or a different legal topic? Contact us for a free consultation. Reach us via phone at 250-888-0002, or via email at info@leaguelaw.com.

  • Disinheritance and Deception – Disputed Estate Goes to the Supreme Court of Canada

    Disinheritance and Deception – Disputed Estate Goes to the Supreme Court of Canada

    Bargaining for Elder Care – the Promise Made

    There were three adult children, Gloria, Max and Nate – each of whom had been promised a third of their parent’s estate including the family home by their father.  As is common, when their father died, everything was left to their mother.  As time went on, the mother was eventually unable to care for herself at home.  Wanting to keep their mother in her home, Gloria, unwilling or unable to care for their mother herself, made a deal with her brother, Max: if he moved back to Victoria, BC, Canada from England to care for their aging mother until her death, that she would agree to sell to him her expected one third interest in the family home, a home that had been built by their father some 60 years earlier.  The home having special meaning to Max, Max packed up his life and made the move, caring for their mother until her death three years later in 2010.

    Deception, Death & Disinheritance – a Recipe for an Estate Dispute

    Gloria held sway with their mother – so much so, that upon their mother’s death, Gloria revealed that their mother had transferred all of her assets to a trust of which Gloria was the only beneficiary.  Gloria’s actions resulted in the entire disinheritance of both brothers, betrayed by a sister who used her influence over their mother to exclude them from the estate. To make matters worse, Gloria then proceeded to refuse to sell to Max the interest in the family home, breaking the pledge she had made to him.

    Dismayed, Max sought to right the wrong that had been done and disputed the estate – suing not only for his fair share of the estate from the disinheritance but, also to hold his sister to the promise she had made to sell Max a one third of interest in the family home.

    Uncertain Certainties and the Law – Promises and Probabilities

    The disinheritance went to trial and the trial judge found Max’s sister had exerted undue influence over her mother in causing the mother to put all of her assets in her daughter’s name.  As a result, the judge ordered all of the assets back into the mother’s estate, and divided the estate equally into thirds.  Importantly, the trial judge also found that Max’s sister had to make good on her promise to sell her one-third interest to Max, because although the sister did not own the interest in the home when she made the promise, it was reasonable for Max to expect that Gloria would after their mother died. 

    In holding Max’s sister to her promise, the trial judge found the key components of “proprietary estoppel” were met:  there was a promise by the sister, that Max reasonably relied on, that was unfairly broken and caused Max detriment.  However, Max’s sister appealed to the BC Court of Appeal, and two of three judges found that Max’s sister could not be held to her promise because she didn’t own the one-third interest in the home at the time she made the promise, and it was not “certain” that she ever would.

    Is it reasonable to require certainty when making a promise about something that a person does not own at the time the promise is made (but is likely, but not certain, to own in the future)?  Are contingent promises valid – or are those who rely on them without recourse if the promise maker reneged?  These questions merited an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which heard the case on May 26, 2017.  

    The Argument Before the Supreme Court of Canada

    League and Williams’, Darren Williams appeared before the 9 judges of the Supreme Court of Canada to argue the case on Max’s behalf.  Mr. Williams argued that the BC Court of Appeal was wrong in insisting there be absolute certainty in the sister’s ability to make good on the promise.  What followed was a lively debate with the 9 justices on the level of probability needed in order for a person to be held to the promise that was made.  Does the outcome of the promise have to be as certain as death or taxes?  Or is reasonable probability enough?  

    The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada is expected in the fall of 2017.  Those who are making contingent promises and those who are relying on those same promises should look forward to the clarity this case may bring to this area of law in Canada.  This blog will be updated once the decision is issued.   

    Have an estate dispute?  The lawyers at League and Williams are here to help and will fight for your fair share of an estate.  We serve clients across British Columbia, offer free consultations and do not get paid until you do.  We may be contacted at 250-888-0002 or via email at info@leaguelaw.com. If you have suffered an unfair disinheritance, do not delay, it could cost you your fair share of an estate.