Vancouver Estate Litigation: *Another* Disinherited Daughter & the BC Court of Appeal.

Disinherited Daughters; the problem is prominent but we are here to help.

TRI-CITY LEGAL has repeatedly commented on how in the Province of BC, and beyond, Courts must hear cases where a deceased Will-Maker’s daughters are disinherited. As such, BC/Vancouver Estate Litigation cases have substantially increased; if one considers the prices of Vancouver/Lower Mainland Real Estate, the rise of Estate Litigation in BC only makes more sense.

TRI-CITY LEGAL are Estates & Trusts Litigation experts and are passionate about protecting the rights of the disinherited. See our page dedicated to BC’s Disinherited Daughters.

But what is “disinheritance”; what does this mean in lay language? To explain, often parents will draft Wills where they leave everything in their estate - the family home; cash in bank accounts; shares/stocks; jewelry; and investment properties, among other things - to their sons leaving their daughters with little-to-nothing.

Daughters are grossly disinherited in comparison to sons.

The BC Court of Appeal recently ruled on a case where a similar issue presented itself. In Scurek v. Scurek, 2021 BCCA 178, the deceased Will-Maker passed away at the age of 85 in 2017. He had two children: a daughter and son. His daughter was sadly disabled, a single mother of two (2), and incapable of functioning in gainful employment. His son, in comparison, possessed assets worth a value exceeding $4 Million Dollars. In short, the daughter was living in poverty while the son was living in prosperity.

At the time of his death, the estate’s value was somewhat greater than $1,900,000 (nearly $2 Million Dollars). Unfortunately, the Will divided the $2 Million Dollar Estate as follows: 50% to his son and the remaining 50% to be divided between his daughter and her two sons (roughly 16.7% each). Certainly, it seems fair that each sibling’s family would be granted 50% of the estate. What is uncertain is whether this division was adequate, just, and an equitable division of the estate considering the facts of the case, namely one child living in destitution. Ultimately, the Trial Judge (Justice Verhoeven) agreed with the daughter and varied the will to provide one‑third to the son, one‑half to the daughter, and one‑twelfth to each of the two grandsons.

The son appealed the order to the BC Court of Appeal. Ultimately, in reviewing the decision, Madam Justice Saunders overruled the Trial Judge however, only in part; the BCCA varied the will stating as follows:

The will did not provide adequately for the daughter. However, by reducing the son’s share below the daughter’s, the order appealed impinges on the testator’s autonomy to an unnecessary degree. Retaining the judge’s re‑apportionment of the residue of the estate to each of the grandsons and dividing the balance thereafter equally between the daughter and son would be adequate, just and equitable in the circumstances.

…

[156]     In my view, bearing in mind the benefits Peter received outside the estate, the appropriate allocation of the estate assets that recognizes, as far as possible, the testator's apparent wish to benefit Peter, as well as the grandsons, is to divide the estate as follows: Lydia 3/6, Peter 2/6, and John Jr. and James, 1/12 each.

[157]     Under this allocation, on current values, and leaving aside other expenses, Lydia receives $813,060. John Jr. and James receive $135,510 each. Peter receives $542,040, which when added together with the $959,188 he received outside the estate, totals $1,501,228.

As noted, we are experts in this field. We would encourage you to learn more about BC’s DISINHERITED DAUGHTERS by clicking the button below. Please call us or fill out the form on our Blog Page to learn more.