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.
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.
Upon the death of Patricia Burns, a number of legal issues arose relating to her sizable estate valued more than $2.5 Million. Her daughter, Leslie Davis, brought an action under s. 60 of WESA alleging that her mother’s will did not make adequate provision for her, the only child. Additionally, Brent Dale brought an application under WESA for the payment of an interim distribution of $250,000 from the estate as he was a beneficiary under the will. The largest asset of the estate had been a house located in Vancouver and was sold in February of 2016. Patricia had left two wills: one that was dated October 2010 and another from 2005.
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.
Michael Heathfield died on November 13, 2011 at the age of 53 and was survived by two minor children, Zachary and Shanon. Michael’s will, dated from 2004, had been made when his personal circumstances were vastly different than when he died. The will was drafted while he was in a common-law relationship with the Defendant, the mother of Zachary and Shanon. As per the 2004 will, the Defendant was the sole beneficiary of the estate. After the couple separated, Michael failed to amend, revoke, or make a new will. The estate was valued at ~$1.2 million and the Public Guardian and Trustee brought an application to vary the will in favour of the children.
Joanne Golos applied for an order to vary the class of persons to whom documents are to be delivered under Rule 25-2(1) to include her. Ms. Golos had been named as a beneficiary in the first and third will, but not the second and final will. She was a friend of the deceased’s wife who had died in 2011 and questioned the capacity of the testator at the time of making his final will as she felt he may have been under undue influence in cutting her out of his final will. Under the previous will, she stood to inherit ~$255,000 from the estate that was worth ~$2.6 Million which consisted mostly of cash.
The testatrix had 5 children and left a will detailing that her estate was to be given entirely to her daughter, Marnie, which effectively disinherited her 4 sons. Two of her sons, Brian and Robert (twins), had received nothing under the will and brought an action to vary her will as they felt it did not make adequate provision for them.
The value of the estate was ~$500,000