A recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia highlights a critical principle in estate litigation. A person may be incapable of managing their financial affairs while still retaining the legal capacity to make a valid will.

In Marshall Estate, the Court was asked to determine whether two wills made by an elderly Vancouver woman suffering from Alzheimer’s disease were valid. The dispute involved allegations of diminished mental capacity, undue influence, suspicious circumstances, and family conflict surrounding a multimillion-dollar estate.

Ultimately, the Court upheld the later wills and dismissed the challenge. The ruling provides important guidance for executors, beneficiaries, caregivers, and families dealing with estate disputes involving cognitive decline.

$3.3 Million Estate at Centre of Dispute

The deceased was a Vancouver resident who died in 2023 at the age of 98. Her estate was valued at approximately $3.3 million and included significant artwork and more than 200 sculptures created by her late husband, a well-known sculptor.

The deceased and her husband had no children. Earlier estate plans benefited a close family friend, who had assisted the deceased with day-to-day matters and issues relating to the artwork after the husband’s death.

However, over time, the relationship between the deceased and that friend deteriorated significantly. Disagreements emerged regarding the management and sale of the sculptures, access to the studio, and control over financial matters. The evidence showed that tensions escalated after the friend prevented the deceased from gifting one of the sculptures to another longtime acquaintance. The deceased became increasingly upset and later revoked an existing power of attorney.

Competing Wills Spark Litigation

The litigation focused on several wills created between 2011 and 2015. An earlier will left the residue of the estate to the family friend. Later wills instead divided the estate between members of the deceased’s family and relatives of her late husband.

The latter wills were prepared by an experienced wills and estates lawyer who had extensive experience dealing with elderly and cognitively impaired clients. The lawyer met privately with the deceased on numerous occasions, reviewed draft wills in detail, documented conversations carefully, and repeatedly assessed whether the deceased understood the nature and consequences of the estate plan.

The friend who benefitted under the earlier will challenged the later wills on two primary grounds:

• The deceased lacked testamentary capacity due to Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline.
• The deceased had been subjected to undue influence by family members.

The friend also argued that the matter required a full trial rather than being decided summarily through affidavit evidence.

Testamentary Capacity Versus Capacity to Manage Affairs

One of the most important aspects of the decision was the distinction between different forms of legal capacity. Before the later wills were made, the deceased had been declared incapable of managing her financial and legal affairs under committeeship proceedings. A professional trust company was appointed to oversee her affairs.

However, the Court emphasized that the legal test for testamentary capacity is different from the test for managing finances or personal affairs.

Under longstanding legal principles, a will-maker must generally understand:

• That a will disposes of property upon death;
• The nature and extent of the property involved;
• The people who may reasonably expect to benefit from the estate; and
• The effect of the proposed distributions.

The Court confirmed that even individuals with dementia or memory impairment may still possess sufficient testamentary capacity to make a valid will.

Medical Evidence Did Not Defeat the Wills

The medical evidence established that the deceased had Alzheimer’s disease and progressive cognitive decline. Several doctors had concluded she lacked the ability to manage her financial affairs.

However, the Court noted that this did not automatically mean she lacked the ability to make a will. Importantly, expert medical evidence obtained during the litigation supported the conclusion that the deceased still understood the nature and effect of her estate planning decisions when the later wills were executed.

The expert observed that although the deceased had memory impairment and dementia, she remained capable of appreciating:

• The consequences of making a will;
• The approximate nature of her assets;
• The identity of family members and potential beneficiaries; and
• The reasons behind her decisions.

The Court also placed significant weight on the drafting lawyer’s evidence. The lawyer had met privately with the deceased several times over many months, reviewed the wills paragraph by paragraph, and carefully documented the deceased’s wishes. The lawyer testified that the deceased consistently expressed clear reasons for excluding the former friend from her estate and demonstrated a strong understanding of what she wanted to accomplish.

Allegations of Undue Influence Failed

The friend also alleged that relatives improperly influenced the deceased into changing her estate plan. Under British Columbia law, a will may be invalid if coercion or domination overcomes the free will of the will-maker. However, persuasion, advice, or family involvement alone are not enough.

The Court found insufficient evidence that any family members exercised coercive control over the deceased. Several factors supported that conclusion:

• The deceased met privately with her lawyer;
• Instructions came directly from the deceased;
• Family members were not involved in drafting meetings;
• The deceased was described as stubborn, opinionated, and independent-minded; and
• The deceased repeatedly expressed the same concerns and wishes over time.

The Court also noted that the deceased’s negative feelings toward the former friend arose from genuine disputes regarding financial management and the handling of the artwork, rather than fabricated allegations planted by others.

Suspicious Circumstances Were Not Established

In estate litigation, suspicious circumstances can shift the burden onto the party defending a will to prove its validity. The friend argued that suspicious circumstances existed because the deceased had dementia, the wills significantly changed prior estate plans, family tensions were escalating, and allegations had been made regarding financial misconduct.

The Court rejected these arguments. Although the estate plan changed substantially, the Court found the changes rational and understandable in light of the deteriorating relationship between the deceased and the former friend.

The evidence showed the deceased had consistently expressed anger and distrust toward the friend for years before the disputed wills were signed. The Court accepted that the deceased no longer wished that individual to benefit from her estate. The Court concluded there was no credible evidence that the deceased’s free will had been overborne.

Estate Disputes Often Arise in High-Conflict Family Situations

Will challenges frequently emerge when aging individuals experience cognitive decline, caregiving disputes, or fractured family relationships.

Conflicts involving powers of attorney, allegations of financial mismanagement, caregiver involvement, or sudden changes to estate plans can all increase the likelihood of litigation after death.

These disputes often require careful analysis of:

• Medical evidence;
• Lawyer’s records and file notes;
• Witness testimony;
• Financial documentation; and
• The surrounding family dynamics.

Because estate litigation can significantly delay estate administration and reduce estate assets through legal costs, early legal guidance is often essential.

Meridian Law Group: Dynamic Vancouver Estate Litigation Lawyers Advising on Will & Capacity Disputes

The dynamic estate litigation lawyers at Meridian Law Group assist with will challenges, defending contested wills, executor disputes, probate litigation, suspicious circumstances claims, trust disputes, and matters involving elderly or vulnerable will-makers.

Early advice can be critical when preserving evidence and navigating complex estate proceedings before the courts. To schedule a consultation on your estate dispute, please contact us online or call (604) 687-2277 today.