B.C. court rules against will that left out daughters


Praxius
+1
#1  Top Rated Post
B.C. court rules against will that left out daughters - CTV News

------------------------------------
VANCOUVER — A B.C. Supreme Court has overturned the will of a man who left all of his assets to his only son, neglecting his four daughters.

Justice Wong of the B.C. Supreme Court in Penticton says the will must be judged by contemporary moral standards and, in that respect, William Werbenuk failed in being fair to the four women.


Werbenuk, who died in 2008 at the age of 86, left behind several estates, farmland in Saskatchewan and a valuable violin collection.

Wong says in his ruling that the father, who terrorized his daughters and made them wash his feet, ought to compensate them and he ordered the inheritance to be divided among the five children.

In the dying man's will, he wrote that his son had looked after him for a long time and deserved his inheritance.

The ruling orders the son to return the guns and tools given to him by his father and for those assets to be divided among the siblings, as well.
-----------------------------------

While the guy sounds like a complete ***..... the judge's justifications for changing his dying will are imo, completely unfounded.

Last I checked, those things in his will are his property..... or was..... but at the time of the will, they were his property and he and anybody else should have full right to dictate what happens to his assets after they die.

If I decided in my will to have all my belongings and assets burned or tossed in the trash, I should damn well expect that to happen..... if I just want to give all my stuff to one person, the same should apply.

If they didn't get anything and their father didn't want to hand them over one single thing, regardless if they saved his life every single day, there is no legal obligation to entitle them to any of his stuff or to complain his decision was unfair..... it's not their sh*t and it never was.

And I would think the judge should clearly explain what "Contemporary Moral Standards" is exactly, since he used such a subjective claim to justify his final ruling.

To put it simply..... the Judge felt sorry for the daughters and personally felt the will was unfair, so he took it upon himself to waive a dead man's last wishes so he can feel good about himself....... it had nothing to do with the law.

So now I know one other thing I need to add to my will:

To add at the end of my will, that if any one thing is changed in my final requests or not carried out as expected..... I shall forever haunt the asses of everyone involved in changing my last requests until they carry out what I originally wanted...... and by gum, I know how to do it too.

"......in that respect, William Werbenuk failed in being fair to the four women."

^ Who the hell ever said it had to be fair?
 
TenPenny
#2
Wills can be contested and set aside if they are considered 'unfair'; the important thing, when you have children is to leave each of them something, with a rational explanation of why. That way, you're more likely to get away with being completely unequal without a problem.
 
Praxius
#3
Well then if that's the case, I'll just make sure I'm buried Egyptian style.... Take all of my belongings with me to my grave, nobody gets anything and don't forget to dump my personal slaves in the tomb while you're at it.

And if anybody attempts to break into my tomb, it will be rigged to be engulfed in flames and turn into a ball of fire.

I already seen what happened when my grandfather unexpectedly died with no will and my grandmother was dragged through the courts because one uncle felt he should have gotten everything where she just wanted to split it up evenly to all the children.... which of course was what happened in the end..... but not until after three or so years in the courts and all the hatred that came about through the family because of one uncle thinking he deserved it all.

Because of that crap, nobody in my family that I know of have spoken to my uncle, aunt, my two cousins and my cousin's kids that my grandmother thought the world of...... they used the kids by not letting them see their great grandmother simply because their father wasn't getting everything.... then they moved out west and we never heard from them since.

As I see it.... if there is no will, then it goes to the husband or wife to decide what happens..... if there is no husband or wife to decide and there is no will, then split it evenly without argument...... if there is a will...... follow it exactly and leave it at that.

When you allow people to contest the final wishes of a dead person or allow them to contest the will of their spouse, all that happens is arguments, hatred and divisions in the family that are almost impossible to repair.

...... all for a bunch of old crap someone left behind when they died...... material possessions....... yet people turn into selfish and hateful pr*cks because of those material possessions, as if they're somehow owed something.
 
TenPenny
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

As I see it.... if there is no will, then it goes to the husband or wife to decide what happens.....

Actually, if there is no will, the courts decide what happens. Depending on the province, typically the surviving spouse and children all share equally.
 
Skatchie
#5
Our courts are out of control. This is another example of no process. When they put that guy in prison for releasing his own personal pictures of the sexual acts him and his ex were doing and filming they started this crap. Morality has nothing to do with legality. This is garbage. The guy, in my example, and this A-hole Dad are both scum but they should have the right to be scum.
 
Praxius
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Actually, if there is no will, the courts decide what happens. Depending on the province, typically the surviving spouse and children all share equally.

As I see it.... I never signed a contract dictating where and who my belongings go to when I die..... therefore nobody is entitled to one single thing from me, related or not...... nor would I expect entitlement to anything from anybody who dies in my family..... their stuff was never my stuff and as when they were alive, they should still be able to determine what happens to it all after they die, via a Will..... otherwise, what's the damn point in a will in the first place?

As it goes for wills and who gets to decide what happens if no will exists..... I was always under the assumption all of that fell on their next of kin.... which is generally one's spouse or oldest child...... not the courts.

That's why the decision fell on my grandmother when it was found my grandfather didn't have a will..... she decided to split it all evenly, but the oldest son didn't like that and felt he was entitled to more then just his fair share and contested the decision in court..... which should have never have happened in the first damn place because he wasn't the next of kin.... his own friggin mother was.

People claiming they're owed something when someone dies or someone else's property somehow belongs to them because of whatever ridiculous reasons they can come up with just shows how petty and selfish those people truly are......

So let's hypothetically say my brother or sister passed away..... should I be entitled to their car because I made the claim that I used it often or use their car to do errands for them once in a while?

Hell no..... people can make up any damn excuses they want to justify what someone else's property belongs to them, but in reality, they're entitled to d*ck all...... they should be god damn grateful they get anything at all.

If petty bickering and divisions in my family is what I have to look forward to when I die because of having to deal with my property..... then I'll make sure it's all destroyed so there's nothing for anybody to bicker over.
 
TenPenny
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

As it goes for wills and who gets to decide what happens if no will exists..... I was always under the assumption all of that fell on their next of kin.... which is generally one's spouse or oldest child...... not the courts.

Well, you are completely wrong on that count. If no will exists, it is the court that decides. Generally, the surviving spouse gets 1/2, the other 1/2 is divided among surviving children.

But that's not set in stone.
 
The Old Medic
#8
The father COULD have disinherited his daughters, but he would have had to follow the law in order to do that.

This is what comes from not using a lawyer to make our your will. He likely either wrote it himself, or used some book to try to draft it. A will MUST meet the legal guidelines of the Province in which you die. If you wrote a valid will in Ontario, then moved to British Columbia and died there, there is a possibility that your will could be overturned if it does not meet BC standards.

You must ALWAYS meet the requirements of the law. If you do not, then your will is fair game. If you die intestate, then the law will divide your estate according to the provisions of the law. You CAN"T have all of your things buried with you (that is not legal most places). And if you wish to disinherit any child, you had better have a damn good reason for doing so.

All too often, the elderly are manipulated by one or more children into doing something like this. When my wife's grandmother died, they discovered 13 wills that her daughter-in-law (her only sons widow) had drawn up, leaving everything to her children. Nana had hand written on each one of them, "I repudiate this will in it's entirety, as I was forced to sign it." (The d-i-l lived one block away, and she would refuse to take Nana shopping for food, etc., unless a will giving Nana's entire estate to her children was in place.) When Nana died, the daughter-in-law submitted a 14th will, saying the same thing, to the court for probate. My wife's mother challenged this in court, and she got that will thrown out. The daughter-in-law, and her children, ended up getting nothing, as the Judge said, "It is patently obvious that the decedent did not want this outcome, and that she was coherced into signing these wills. This was an outrageous violation of her civil rights, and the court will not allow the perpetrator or her children to benefit from these actions."

And frankly, this man deserved to have his will overturned. If even some of what the court stated (such as having his daughters wash his feet, etc.) is true, he used his daughters and then tried to stiff them when he died.

Sorry, but rank inequity is NOT sanctioned by the law.
 
Praxius
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Well, you are completely wrong on that count. If no will exists, it is the court that decides. Generally, the surviving spouse gets 1/2, the other 1/2 is divided among surviving children.

But that's not set in stone.

Regardless if I'm completely wrong or right...... the current system allowing Judges to decide beyond the requests of the deceased person's wishes is wrong...... when it comes to the current system over riding the next of kin's decisions and wishes when there is no will and opening up a big sh*t flinging fest between all involved to bitch and moan about what they think they're entitled to is also wrong and creates way more problems then it solves.

It should be changed..... and until it is, I'll have my own plans on how to deal with this..... courts and judges be damned.

Throughout my life, when I felt someone was deserving or warranted having something of mine, be that a family thing passed down through the years, or just something I no longer have any use for..... I generally give it to them the moment the thought crosses my mind........ anything anybody didn't get before I died will be destroyed or given to charity, because if I wanted them to have something of mine, chances are, I would have given it to them by now or would have already made a previous agreement for them to have said item.

Like I said... if someone comes along and tries to screw around with that plan..... I'll haunt their *** off a friggin cliff.
 
TenPenny
#10
There's a good reason to have a will, and have it drawn up by a competent lawyer.
 
Praxius
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by The Old MedicView Post

You must ALWAYS meet the requirements of the law. If you do not, then your will is fair game. If you die intestate, then the law will divide your estate according to the provisions of the law. You CAN"T have all of your things buried with you (that is not legal most places).

They'll have to find where I was buried first.

Quote:

And if you wish to disinherit any child, you had better have a damn good reason for doing so.

I don't like them anymore..... the child in question tried to kill me..... they're a selfish pr*ck..... or how about my reasons are my own?

Quote:

All too often, the elderly are manipulated by one or more children into doing something like this. When my wife's grandmother died, they discovered 13 wills that her daughter-in-law (her only sons widow) had drawn up, leaving everything to her children. Nana had hand written on each one of them, "I repudiate this will in it's entirety, as I was forced to sign it." (The d-i-l lived one block away, and she would refuse to take Nana shopping for food, etc., unless a will giving Nana's entire estate to her children was in place.) When Nana died, the daughter-in-law submitted a 14th will, saying the same thing, to the court for probate. My wife's mother challenged this in court, and she got that will thrown out. The daughter-in-law, and her children, ended up getting nothing, as the Judge said, "It is patently obvious that the decedent did not want this outcome, and that she was coherced into signing these wills. This was an outrageous violation of her civil rights, and the court will not allow the perpetrator or her children to benefit from these actions."
And frankly, this man deserved to have his will overturned. If even some of what the court stated (such as having his daughters wash his feet, etc.) is true, he used his daughters and then tried to stiff them when he died.
Sorry, but rank inequity is NOT sanctioned by the law.

Quote has been trimmed
Good to know..... so that when it comes close to my time, I'll make sure 98% of my stuff is either destroyed or given away so that the only thing left to fight over is my old tooth brush and my pitt stick I didn't quite finish off before I died.

To even fathom any of my future children or family bickering and at each other's throats for whatever material possessions I have is something I'd never tolerate, because it's not what my grandfather would have tolerated (yet it happened and now his family is divided and no longer talking to one another)...... it's not what my grandmother on my dad's side would have tolerated when she passed away...... it's not what my parents taught me growing up...... material possessions and money are simply not worth the destruction of one's family just because you died..... and if my children ever ended up like the people I've come across in these situations all too often, I'd be greatly disappointed.
 
Skatchie
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

There's a good reason to have a will, and have it drawn up by a competent lawyer.

Yeah, because lawyers don't have enough control over everything and enough reason to create work for themselves.
 
Trotz
+1
#13
This is the same B.C. Supreme Court that has screwed over dozens.

I seriously doubt this is a case of a sibling manouvering and forcing his father to sign a will. After all, this family's surname is Werbenuk and by profession we can assume they are farmers (with the property in Sask) and Ukrainian farmers are a (family) conservative lot. So it doesn't seem so outlandish that a Farmer would sign his assets over to his only son.

So the B.C. Supreme Court has probably screwed over Werbenuk's son. He is probably a farmer and now he has his farmland divided into five sections making it worthless and he'll probably be forced to buy the land back from his sisters, adding insult to injury.

Of course the banks are laughing because Werbenuk will have to take out loans just to purchase the farmland whilst his sisters will walk away with millions in cold hard cash....

His sisters are simply cold evil B*tches.

We can assume this is another case of the B.C. Supreme Court setting another precedence, most likely with the intention of screwing over immigrants.

They'll be using this ruling when a Sikh / Muslim or even a Chinese family hands their assets only to the sole male child.

Much like they'll be using the ruling in the polygamy B.C. case (going after Mormons) but anyone with a brain will know they'll be using the ruling on polygamous Muslims in the Lowermainland.
Last edited by Trotz; Dec 1st, 2010 at 03:26 PM..Reason: spelling
 
wulfie68
+1
#14
I'm pretty much with Praxius on this one: the deceased may have been a nasty man but that doesn't mean his will should be disregarded where it involves non-dependants. If the treatment they received was so horrible, the daughters could have pursued criminal or civil action while he was alive. A court ruling that someone must be fair by "contemporary moral standards" is intrusive BS.

Now the way everything is described, as the deceased owning several estates, as well as farmland, it doesn't sound like anyone involved will be hurting for cash when the dust settles (especially the lawyers) but that doesn't excuse it. I would be interested if anyone could provide/link more info on this case, as with the description, and inference that the properties left by the deceased are substantial, I would be surprised if a lawyer wasn't involved... unless the old bugger was an absolute cheapskate, which to me doesn't seem consistent with the violin collection...
 
Tonington
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post


While the guy sounds like a complete ***..... the judge's justifications for changing his dying will are imo, completely unfounded.

Well, it seems that CBC and CTV are both misleading readers about the decision and the justification.

For starters, there's Section 2 of the Wills Variation Act, which the judge cited, and reads:
Quote:

Despite any law or statute to the contrary, if a Testator dies leaving a will that does not, in the courtís opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the Testatorís spouse or children, the court may, in its discretion, in an action by or on behalf of the spouse or children, order that the provision that it thinks adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances be made out of the Testatorís estate for the spouse or children.

Read the actual decision, the reasoning is clearly not "because the father was a mean ***". There is legal precedence, and statutes that lay the basis for children and why they can contest wills like this one.
 
TenPenny
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

There is legal precedence, and statutes that lay the basis for children and why they can contest wills like this one.

Exactly, that's what I was saying. It's nothing new, it's a very old legal concept.
 
Tonington
#17
Definitely not new. My father had his will done up a few years ago, by a lawyer. The old man is very much a details kind of guy, but he knows when to go to professionals to make his details valid.
 
TenPenny
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Definitely not new. My father had his will done up a few years ago, by a lawyer. The old man is very much a details kind of guy, but he knows when to go to professionals to make his details valid.

Yeah, if you want to have a will that stands up, you should get a lawyer who knows what he's doing. A bad lawyer is as good as none at all, they'll let you draft a will that won't stand up in court.

If Farmer ****weed in BC had used a good lawyer, he would have been persuaded to leave some token stuff to his daughters, and make sure he justified his treatment of his son. Obviously, he didn't do it well.
 
Tonington
#19
You're right about bad lawyers...I feel the same way about some doctors
 
Trotz
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Yeah, if you want to have a will that stands up, you should get a lawyer who knows what he's doing. A bad lawyer is as good as none at all, they'll let you draft a will that won't stand up in court.

If Farmer ****weed in BC had used a good lawyer, he would have been persuaded to leave some token stuff to his daughters, and make sure he justified his treatment of his son. Obviously, he didn't do it well.

True.
We shouldn't assume that the career lawyers knew better. After all, how often does a lawyer go into the countryside or let alone a farm? You just can't split farmland into five different sections. The man might have had millions in farm property but that doesn't mean he had a million acres in farmland, especially if its prime Saskie wheat land, he could have had just a dozen or so acres.


But you are right this is all about precedence. The B.C. Supreme Court knows it won't live long if it targets immigrants, therefore instead, we are seeing them go after sacrifical limbs. I.E., the Polygamous Mormons (don't mention the polygamous Muslims in the LML! Who probably outnumber said Mormons 10:1, if I had to guess!) and the sole male child receiving his father's farmland (don't mention that to immigrant families from countries in which male children are given the land).
 
JLM
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

Definitely not new. My father had his will done up a few years ago, by a lawyer. The old man is very much a details kind of guy, but he knows when to go to professionals to make his details valid.

I'm not much on lawyers for anything, I suppose sometimes they are necessary, but if it will work I use a notary public. For my own will which I made a few years ago I took my mother's will (after she died) since it worked OK and just copied the format verbatim and then filled in the spaces with the names and amounts etc. pertaining to me. Hers was drawn up by a lawyer, so I figured no use paying twice for the same service. Just a hint before everyone goes squandering a bunch of money.
 
Tonington
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I'm not much on lawyers for anything, I suppose sometimes they are necessary, but if it will work I use a notary public.

A public notary wouldn't have made this man's will any more valid than it was as is.
 
JLM
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

A public notary wouldn't have made this man's will any more valid than it was as is.

No- the fault lies with the court for interfering.
 
Tonington
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

No- the fault lies with the court for interfering.

The court has no liberty to ignore the law JLM. Acts of Parliament that are constitutionally valid supersede the opinion of a judge. That's the way our system works.

The fault lies with whomever drafted the will.
 
JLM
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by ToningtonView Post

The court has no liberty to ignore the law JLM. Acts of Parliament that are constitutionally valid supersede the opinion of a judge. That's the way our system works.

The fault lies with whomever drafted the will.

You and I differ a little on this one. A court has no say on how a man spends his money while he's alive, so why should they after he is dead. Legally financial responsibility for one's kids ends at age 19. The guy does have a perfect right to be an A@@hole as long as he's not breaking any laws. All this meddling is going to accomplish eventually is people will have most of their funds and property dispersed before they die. In fact I may start tomorrow.
 
Kreskin
#26
The ruling is based on precedent. If he had left all of them something, but the son more than others, the courts wouldn't have looked at it. But leaving some without any is often successfully contested, as was the case here.
 
bill barilko
#27
Quote:

. A court has no say on how a man spends his money while he's alive, so why should they after he is dead.

Because assuring that all are treated fairly under the law is one of the keystones of a civil society.
 
Tonington
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You and I differ a little on this one. A court has no say on how a man spends his money while he's alive, so why should they after he is dead.

Because it's the law...did you even bother to read the decision? I linked to it in my first post in here. See for yourself.
 
Praxius
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

Exactly, that's what I was saying. It's nothing new, it's a very old legal concept.

I didn't say it wasn't the case, I'm saying it shouldn't be.

Regardless of what the law dictates, explain to me in your own words how someone has a right to someone else's property.

Explain to me how my father owes me his car if he passes away.

Explain to me how my mother would owe me her house if she passed away.

"Despite any law or statute to the contrary, if a Testator dies leaving a will that does not, in the courtís opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the Testatorís spouse or children, the court may, in its discretion, in an action by or on behalf of the spouse or children, order that the provision that it thinks adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances be made out of the Testatorís estate for the spouse or children."

^ If none of their children or other family members are "Dependent" on the person who passed away, if they have their own homes, their own jobs, their own families, their own lives and are doing just fine without constantly asking mommy and daddy for money and help...... where's the argument for "Maintenance and Support for the Spouse or Children?"

In situations where the parent dies early and the children are still minors, sure I get that it should be distributed and equally used for the children in support and maintenance..... but if their children are no longer dependent on the parent who passed away...... all it is is a selfish and greedy money grab, while bitch slapping someone's last requests.

And if it's all up to the courts to determine what's fair and how things should be given out to everybody...... as I asked before..... what's the point in a Will and what's the point in wasting the time to write one out??

For the fun of it?

90% of the time there's always going to be at least one *** hat who doesn't like how things were distributed and will fight it in court to get more..... and as I see it.... if you're a grown, independent adult living all on your own, there is no "Maintenance or Support" for you that needs to be compensated for.....

..... usually by that time it's you, the child, who needs to help maintain and support your parents.

---------------------------------------

Basically all I want is one clear explanation of what sorts of Maintenance or Support one would need to be compensated for to justify the courts tossing away someone's dying last wishes and making it up as they see fit.

And just saying "Because it's the law" doesn't cut it...... Just because something is the law, doesn't make it right..... there has to be something that justifies it being "Right" and that law existing in the first place.
 
TenPenny
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by PraxiusView Post

And if it's all up to the courts to determine what's fair and how things should be given out to everybody...... as I asked before..... what's the point in a Will and what's the point in wasting the time to write one out??

It's not all up to the courts. It can be taken to the courts, like any contract, if the family contests the will. Or if there is no will. And only in certain circumstances, such as this one, will the court over rule the will.
 

Similar Threads

1
no new posts