Generally speaking, matters of estate law arise after the death of a given individual and generally relate to disputes amongst beneficiaries concerning how the terms of the deceased’s final will and testament are executed and whether the deceased’s true intentions are reflected in the testamentary instrument. It is far less common that a person would sue someone who is still alive because they discovered that the living person does not intend to leave anything to the complainant in their will, and the complainant is unhappy with that turn of events.

Niece Sues Still-Living Aunt for Excluding Niece from Aunt’s Will

Alas, such a case does exist. Angelis v Siermy involved Annie Siermy, who was sued by her niece, Barbara Angelis. Annie, who was childless, had been close to her niece, Barbara, throughout her life. As such, it was no surprise that in 2002, Annie amended her final will and testament to bequeath the bulk of her estate to Barbara. Previous iterations of Annie’s will that had been enacted from the 1950s through 2002 had left the entirety of her estate to, variously, Annie’s husband or her brother (Barbara’s father). In 2011, Barbara discovered that Annie had executed a new will that dictated that the bulk of her estate be left to a different niece and that Barbara would receive nothing.

Barbara confronted her aunt Annie immediately after she discovered the amendments to Annie’s will, which fractured the once close relationship between the two and created acrimony amongst the larger family unit. Barbara claimed that the 2002 will constituted “a written expression of an oral contract in which [Annie] promised to leave the bulk of her estate to [Barbara] in exchange for [Barbara] providing years of unpaid service to [Annie]” (Barbara had for many years provided familial services to Annie in the form of minor errands and such). Barbara called this agreement between herself and Annie a “legacy agreement” and claimed that the change in beneficiary made in 2011 would constitute a breach of that agreement. In simple terms, Barbara claimed that Annie was not entitled to amend her will to disinherit Barbara because to allow such amendment would be a breach of the legacy agreement (i.e., a breach of contract) such that Annie must be prevented from being permitted to amend her will to exclude Barbara as the primary beneficiary of the estate. Barbara claimed that the existence of this legacy agreement was supported by three “Letters from the Grave”, each written by Annie and intended to be presented to her husband in the event that Annie predeceased him.

For her part, Annie defended the claim on grounds that no contract existed concerning how she was intended to dispose of her personal estate and assets and, furthermore, that she was entitled to change her mind about naming the beneficiary(ies) of her estate. Annie further noted that Barbara alone claimed the existence of the legacy agreement and two of the three purported “Letters from the Grave”, which was not collaborated by any of Annie, Annie’s counsel or Annie’s accountants who were involved in the drafting of the 2002 will, nor any other collateral witness.

The Legal Principles Applicable to Testamentary Autonomy and Contract Enforceability

The court began by reviewing the provisions of British Columbia’s Law and Equity Act, specifically section 59, which governs contract enforceability. Subsection 59(3) dictates that the following criteria must be satisfied for a contract to be considered enforceable:

“(3) A contract respecting land or a disposition of land is not enforceable unless

(a) there is, in writing signed by the party to be charged or by that party’s agent, both an indication that it has been made and a reasonable indication of the subject matter,

(b) the party to be charged has done an act or acquiesced in an act of the party alleging the contract or disposition, that indicates that a contract or disposition not inconsistent with that alleged has been made, or

(c) the person alleging the contract or disposition has, in reasonable reliance on it, so changed the person’s position that an inequitable result, having regard to both parties’ interests, can be avoided only by enforcing the contract or disposition.”

In respect of the concept of testamentary autonomy, the court noted that the principle is “a deeply entrenched common law principle” and as such, any allegations made with respect to whether a particular person is entitled to dispose of their property, under their own will, in accordance with terms they deem fit, must be met with significant scrutiny. In other words, in Canada, individuals are presumed to have the right to determine how their property will be disposed of upon their death, and any interference with their stated wishes by any other individual must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that the testator’s rights are not violated:

“… given the importance of testamentary autonomy, a testamentary contract will be very carefully scrutinized. It is not sufficient that the testator simply describes a state of affairs in terms of his or her testamentary intention at the time. The requirements of offer, acceptance, and consideration must be satisfied. There must be a certainty of obligation on the recipient of the estate. The contract must have the required certainty of the subject.”

Application of the Legal Principles to the Facts of This Case

The court undertook a thorough and lengthy review of all of the documents purported to be relevant to the case. It determined that there was no evidence, apart from the Letters from the Grave, to support the conclusion that any formal, written “legacy agreement” had ever been executed between Annie and Barbara. The court found that “to the contrary, the evidence suggests that no agreement existed.” Moreover, the court was satisfied that Letters from the Grave #2 and #3 “were not authored by Annie” and as such, “do not represent documents wherein Annie reduced her thoughts, or intention to be bound contractually, to paper”. As those letters did not provide any evidence of Annie’s testamentary intentions, so there was no evidence of the existence of a legacy agreement. Rather, the court was satisfied that “there was no Legacy Agreement between the parties” and that “for a period of time, Annie’s estate documents … named Barbara as the beneficiary of Annie’s estate. That was a testamentary intention. It was not contractual. Annie was entitled to revoke the trust and change her beneficiary designation.” In other words, the legacy agreement did not alter Annie’s presumed testamentary autonomy (i.e., her right to decide who would benefit from her estate upon her death) because no such agreement existed.

The court then addressed Barbara’s secondary argument that if no contract were found to be established between her and Annie, then Barbara would be entitled to compensation for all of the work and support she had provided Annie and her husband over the years based on “unjust enrichment.” To that end, the court noted that unjust enrichment is only available to those who come to the court with “clean hands.” “In order to disentitle a plaintiff from recovery, the conduct that represents the unclean hands must be related to the claim for payment.” Since the court had found that the legacy agreement never existed, and that “hence, Barbara could never have believed in its existence” and that “Barbara created the only documents that suggest the existence of such a contract,” Barbara must have forged the Letters from the Grave #2 and #3 and thus her hands were unclean in respect of her claim of unjust enrichment. In these circumstances, Barbara’s actions in forging the legal documents to try to force her aunt to name her a beneficiary of her significant estate constituted sufficient dubious behaviour to bar Barbara from recovering any monies under the guise of unjust enrichment.

As a result, Barbara’s claim of breach of contract or, alternatively, unjust enrichment were both dismissed. Annie maintained her testamentary autonomy to name whomever she chose as a beneficiary of her will as she deemed fit.

Contact the Estate Lawyers at Meridian Law Group for Advice on Your Will and Estate

The estate lawyers at Meridian Law Group are experienced in all facets of estate litigation, including dealing with problem executors, powers of attorney, trust disagreements, and disputes over interpretation of a will. Merdian Law Group’s estate lawyers have the knowledge and skill necessary to compassionately and competently handle your estate matter and ensure that your rights are asserted and protected throughout all proceedings.

Contact an estate lawyer at Meridian Law Group today, either online or by telephone, at (604) 687-2277, to schedule a confidential and comprehensive meeting with one of our capable team members. With offices located in downtown Vancouver, Meridian Law Group is proud to serve clients throughout the province of British Columbia.