The wife of the deceased sought variation of his will under the WVA asserting it did not make adequate, just and equitable provision for her. The will had been drafted September 24, 2003 and the testator died September 7, 2013 (pre-WESA). The plaintiff was the second wife of the deceased, but their relationship had lasted approximately 34 years. The plaintiff had two children from her first marriage. The deceased had four children from his first marriage.
The petitioner, Debi, sought a determination pursuant to s. 58 of WESA whether the signed document of her deceased father, Larry, dated February 7, 2016, represented his intentions to replace his Will dated August 11, 2015. The petition was not opposed. This case was another example which highlighted the use of the s. 58 curative provisions of WESA to assist the court in determining an individuals' wishes after death.
The testator had two sons, but one did not know the identity of his biological father until his teenage years. When the testator died, he left the estate equally between his sister, the executrix of the estate, and one of his son’s (E). Subsequently, in 2013, E’s mother brought an application (as legal guardian), on E’s behalf, under the Wills Variation Act to vary the will. Through this application, the matter was settled whereupon E would receive 80% of the estate and W would receive 20%. Later, the estranged son, J, brought an action for an order that the will provide provision for him as well.
Dr. Philp (84) brought a claim under s. 2 of the Wills Variation Act as he felt the will of his wife did not make adequate provision for him. While both Dr. Philp and the deceased had previous marriages, they had a long relationship together and were married for 31 years. The will provided Dr. Philp a life interest in the family farm property (owned originally by the couple as joint tenants) as well as the income generated from the residue of the estate until his death. The value of the estate at the time of death was valued at $677,000.
The Plaintiff was born to the testatrix, but was subsequently legally adopted when he was ~1 year old. The Plaintiff later reunited with his birth mother and they enjoyed a loving relationship. In his birth mother's will, the Plaintiff was to be left a portion of her estate. The Plaintiff brought an action seeking variation of the will pursuant to s. 60 of WESA, but the Executor of her estate brought an application to dismiss the Plaintiff's claim arguing he did not have standing to advance such an action under WESA.
This curious case arose after the deceased had struggled with extensive medical conditions, but he and his wife had wanted to have a family together and agreed the wife would use his reproductive material to conceive a child. The couple had agreed that regardless of whether he died, the wife would use his reproductive material to conceive. The deceased died intestate and the estate passed to his wife whereupon she applied for a declaration that the human reproductive material of her husband was her sole legal property and that it should be released to her for her use absolutely to create embryos.
The testator left behind an estate worth over $2 million and his will detailed it be divided into two shares, one to his son absolutely and the income of the other to his wife for life, then to be divided among her son’s living children upon her death. The wife brought an application to vary the will as she felt the will failed to adequately address the legal obligations to her. The couple had been married for 53 years and their finances had been intimately entwined.
The litigation had been commenced many years ago in 2003 and had essentially been sitting stagnant as no substantial steps had been taken to move the matter forward. The plaintiff, the wife of the deceased, had begun the action after her husband’s death in 2002 and the action was brought ahead after her subsequent death in 2015. The action was brought by the plaintiff’s personal representative and the claim sought variation of the late husband’s will as it did not make adequate, just and equitable provision for her.Importantly, since the testator’s death, the plaintiff had been living in the matrimonial home and the executors of the estate, the testator’s children, had been providing some money from the estate to assist the plaintiff’s living situation.
The wife of the deceased, Dr. Dominic Ciarniello, sought variation of her late husband’s will as she felt the will did not make adequate, just and equitable provision for her. The testator left behind a sizable estate and his wife of 28 years (39 years together) and 5 adult children (3 being from previous marriage). The will provided that after certain specific gifts, the residue of the estate was to be divided equally among his 5 children and his wife was only to receive any interest he had in the family home in Vancouver. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff felt she was not adequately provided for. The claim was brought by summary trial application.
The Plaintiff, the 25 year old daughter of the deceased, brought an application, by way of summary trial under Rule 9-7, seeking an order varying the will of her mother. Her mother had left the residue of the estate, consisting of annuity payments under structured settlement, to her husband with intention that he would provide for her daughter out of the residue at his discretion. The deceased had passed away June 1, 2013, prior to Part 4 of the new Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 [WESA] coming into force. Therefore, the court’s power to vary the will derived from the former provisions of the Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, at ss. 2 and 5.
The testator died February 1, 2012 at age 85 and left behind a wife and a number of adult children from two marriages. The children from his first marriage sought variation of the will pursuant to s. 2 of the Wills Variation Act and a declaration that Betty Sim (Mrs. Sim), the executrix and trustee of the estate, holds a Peachland property in trust for the estate. The Peachland property had originally been in their step-mother's family (subsequently purchased by her) and had an estimated value of ~$760,000. The court weighed in on whether or not this property formed part of the deceased's estate.
The recent decision of Anderson v. Anderson Estate is an example of the tension that often exists with families at the time of a death. Earle Lloyd Anderson died December 6, 2012 only one week short of his 88th birthday. The Plaintiff, Mrs. Anderson, was Earle’s second wife and they had been married in 1992. Mrs. Anderson brought an application to vary the will of her husband as she had only been left the ability to remain in their matrimonial home (on conditions) and receive a modest income from the residue of the estate (on similar conditions). The Defendants, Earle’s children from a previous marriage, opposed the application and held the opinion that their father and Mrs. Anderson were separated after his hospitalization before death in 2012 and was not entitled to anything further.