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

[JLM]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

. 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]

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]

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 court’s opinion, make adequate provision for the proper maintenance and support of the Testator’s 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 Testator’s 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 ass 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]

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.

 

[Praxius]

Because assuring that all are treated fairly under the law is one of the keystones of a civil society.

And where does that line cross into "Treating someone fairly" to your own property YOU paid for, YOU worked for, YOU earned and YOU accumulated throughout your own life.

That's all your own hard work, blood, sweat and tears..... Suddenly now you have a bunch of other people coming in after you like friggin vultures making claims justifying how your property, your memories, your successes and earnings are now their's........ and they're entitled to it.

No..... nobody's entitled to your crap except maybe your spouse (Even that I have issues with)..... People should be grateful for whatever they damn well get, if they get anything.

In my view, while I support some aspects of Socialism, Socialism should not cross this line.

If people are justified in being selfish pr*cks over material possessions that aren't even their's..... then I should be justified in being a selfish pr*ck over my own material possessions and dictate who gets what of mine..... if anything at all.

All our lives we work for the system.... the government..... we work to pay our bills, we work to have families, we work just to have a few days once in a while where we don't work...... those material possessions and earnings of ours we accumulated are our trivial little rewards for staying in the system and sacrificing so much of our freedom....... then we get to retire and spend the next 10-25 years of our lives to try and do all the things we couldn't do when we were younger and sacrificing our lives to this system..... but we're old and crippled and can't do as much as we could have when we were younger....... then we die and suddenly everything you accomplished in your life isn't yours anymore...... somehow it just became everybody else's except yours and now they're going to fight over it all like a pack of hungry dogs.......

You being dead doesn't seem to make much of a difference at this stage.... it doesn't seem to be about you anymore..... it's all about these people and what they can strip from your carcass...... your last requests don't mean squat since the courts can determine for themselves what should be done...... you can't make sure certain people get things of yours you think they deserve or have earned for whatever reason, you can't ensure certain people will get certain items they may find personal meaning to...... and you can't make sure the assholes in your life don't get anything.... because they can fight in the courts and argue they're owed something for all their efforts..... and the courts can see it their way and hand over your memories, your earnings, your life to a bunch of idiots you never wanted in your life to begin with.

That to me is complete BS...... sucks to the law.

 

[TenPenny]

5. Unequal treatment of children
[134] That an independent child has not been given the same provision under a will as the testator’s other child or children will not, of itself, necessarily establish a moral claim: Re Lukie et al and Helgason et al., 72 D.L.R. (3d) 395, [1976] B.C.J. No. 1393 (C.A.); Price. On the other hand, in Vielbig v. Waterland Estate 1995 CanLII 2544 (BC C.A.), (1995), 1 B.C.L.R. (3d) 76, 6 E.T.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal held that equal treatment among independent adult children is prima facie fair from a moral duty standpoint. In Ryan, the court held that in the absence of relevant reasons for an unequal distribution, there is a reasonable expectation that adult children will share equally, even though no legal obligation requiring equal distribution exists. (para. 67). The emerging rule of thumb to the effect that equal apportionment among children prima facie discharges a testator’s moral duty was applied in Inch. There, the court held that an equal distribution was prima facie fair, despite the fact that one child received significant assets by way of inter vivos transfers. The proposition was recently revisited by the Court of Appeal in Doucette. In that case, the Court of Appeal appeared to have no difficulty with the disinheritance of one of the preferred beneficiaries by allocating her nothing out of the estate in light of the generous gifts that she had received outside the will via jointly held assets.

 

[Praxius]

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.

Regardless, the courts have the final say, therefore it is indeed all up to the courts.

Why?

Because it's the law to make sure everybody is treated fairly and their maintenance & support need to be considered?

Once again..... Why?

If the children are legal adults, living all on their own and have their own lives started..... what maintenance and support must be considered?

The first 18-19 years of their life wasn't enough maintenance and support already?

It's not enough to just state "It's the Law"...... there needs to be justification for the law existing in the first place and if it can not be clearly justified and the law appears to be abused on a regular basis without justification, then it must be challenged.

 

[Cannuck]

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20101201/court-overturns-male-only-inheritance-101201/

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

Then you are obviously unfamiliar with BC law.

Our courts are out of control.....

It would appear Praxius is not alone in his ignorance of BC law.

This is the same B.C. Supreme Court that has screwed over dozens.

Jimminy Crickets!! The place is crawling with them!!!

 

[Praxius]

5. Unequal treatment of children
[134] That an independent child has not been given the same provision under a will as the testator’s other child or children will not, of itself, necessarily establish a moral claim: Re Lukie et al and Helgason et al., 72 D.L.R. (3d) 395, [1976] B.C.J. No. 1393 (C.A.); Price. On the other hand, in Vielbig v. Waterland Estate 1995 CanLII 2544 (BC C.A.), (1995), 1 B.C.L.R. (3d) 76, 6 E.T.R. (2d) 1 (C.A.), the Court of Appeal held that equal treatment among independent adult children is prima facie fair from a moral duty standpoint.

At first glance, it's fair from a moral duty standpoint...... why?

In Ryan, the court held that in the absence of relevant reasons for an unequal distribution, there is a reasonable expectation that adult children will share equally, even though no legal obligation requiring equal distribution exists.

So there's no legal obligation to meet this equal distribution decision...... yet the courts can determine that there is legal obligation just by dictating the final decisions they come up with that contradict a will..... why?

because at prima facie (first glance) it's fair?

Why is it fair? Because it meets the Moral Duty Standpoint?

Who's morals are they basing their decision on?

(para. 67). The emerging rule of thumb to the effect that equal apportionment among children prima facie discharges a testator’s moral duty was applied in Inch. There, the court held that an equal distribution was prima facie fair, despite the fact that one child received significant assets by way of inter vivos transfers. The proposition was recently revisited by the Court of Appeal in Doucette. In that case, the Court of Appeal appeared to have no difficulty with the disinheritance of one of the preferred beneficiaries by allocating her nothing out of the estate in light of the generous gifts that she had received outside the will via jointly held assets.

^ I'm still waiting for an explanation as to why any of the above is justified other then courts and judges deciding upon themselves what's fair and what meets some subjective and vague "Moral Standpoint" that also isn't clearly defined........

The above just describes how they can trash someone's will because a couple of people might not have been treated fairly, while they can also take someone completely out of a will because they feel they got a bunch of stuff already while the person in question still lived. (which doesn't sound very fair either)

Last I checked.... I don't have to treat a god damn person fairly when it comes to my own property...... maybe when I was a little kid my mom would tell me to share my Tonka Truck..... but as an adult, I have every damn right to allow or not allow someone access or use to anything that is mine.... that's the law in regards to personal property, last I checked.

But suddenly because you died.... you're treated as a child again and told who can play with what of yours..... the only difference this time is you're dead and they're not going to give it back to you.

So I'm still waiting for clear justifications for why these laws exist that overrule someone's last requests..... besides "It's not fair!"

Whoever said life was fair?

 

[Cannuck]

I see somebody finally mentioned the Wills Variation Act.

 

[Praxius]

Then you are obviously unfamiliar with BC law.

I said in my opinion they're wrong..... I didn't say legally or technically they're wrong.

It would appear Praxius is not alone in his ignorance of BC law.

Once again, speaking of being ignorant, I and most others in here are stating what we feel is right and wrong, regardless of what the law states.

Jimminy Crickets!! The place is crawling with them!!!

No kidding..... now how about next time you read through what's actually being discussed next time.

 

[Cannuck]

I said in my opinion they're wrong..... I didn't say legally or technically they're wrong.

What you said was, "the judge's justifications for changing his dying will are imo, completely unfounded."

He is a judge. It is his job to interpret the law. That is what he did. If you don't like the law, move to BC, get elected and work to change it....don't blame the judge.

 

[JLM]

Then you are obviously unfamiliar with BC law.



It would appear Praxius is not alone in his ignorance of BC law.



Jimminy Crickets!! The place is crawling with them!!!

Geez Kerist Cannuck, are you an expert on B.C. law too? Hope your expertise is better than that regarding the Canucks or on old codgers at the wheel. :lol:

 

[Cannuck]

Geez Kerist Cannuck, are you an expert on B.C. law too?

Nope. The only thing I'm an expert at is searching out the facts before I shoot my mouth off.

There is a law in BC. One can argue the pros and cons of the law or one can criticize the judge for enforcing it. I choose to do the former. Are you game?