Coulston v. Dixon: Joint Accounts, Resulting Trusts and Equal Treatment
In the recent decision of Coulston v. Dixon, Justice Sloan was asked to consider whether a joint account passed by right of survivorship to the sole surviving joint owner or whether a resulting trust applied such that the asset passed to the Deceased’s estate.
The Deceased, Rheta, died in 2012 at the impressive age of 101 years. Rheta had two children: a son Tom, and a daughter
Rheta’s son Tom died the year before Rheta died and his children commenced these proceedings.
By all accounts, Rheta had a positive relationship with both of her children. They got along very well, spent time together, often going on holidays as a family together. As Rheta aged, Tom and her daughter helped her with financial matters as she increasingly required assistance.
Over her lifetime, Rheta had set up several assets in joint ownership with her children. She and Tom had bought a property together in Bobcaygeon in 1989 as joint tenants. While Tom made a nominal contribution to the purchase, Rheta put in some $183,000.00.
In 1994, Rheta set up a joint investment account with her daughter. The entire sum of $73,000.00 was contributed by Rheta.
Rheta also executed a will in 1994 that provided that the residue of her estate was to pass to her children equally. The will specifically referred to the joint Bobcaygeon property and the joint investment account and directed that the daughter was to receive the difference in value of the assets from the estate such that she and Tom received the same value under the estate.
In 2000, Rheta executed another will that provided that the residue of the estate was to pass equally to both of her children.
Both wills provided that in the event that Tom or the daughter predeceased Rheta, their share would pass to their respective children per stirpes.
In 2000, a joint account was set up with Tom, the daughter and Rheta as joint owners. The funds from the account formerly held by the daughter and her mother were transferred to this account. A year later, the Bobcaygeon property was sold, and the monies that Rheta had put into its purchase were deposited to the three-way joint account. All of the monies in the account came from Rheta.
In 2004, Rheta’s condominium was sold and she moved into a nursing home to help her deal with her mental and physical challenges. Rheta had dementia which worsened over the years. By 2007, Rheta could not recognize her children on the telephone. In 2011, Tom died, but because of her diminished mental state, nobody told Rheta of his passing.
At the time of Rheta’s death in 2012, nearly all of her assets were in the joint account. As Tom had died, at the time of Rheta’s death, the account was held at that time jointly by Rheta and her daughter.
Tom’s children brought this application to ask the court to determine whether the joint account (which held most of Rheta’s assets) passed by right of survivorship to the daughter or whether the presumption of resulting trust applied to that account.
The lawyer who drafted Rheta’s Wills provided evidence that Rheta had told him that she wanted all her assets liquidated and distributed equally between her children. The terms of both wills appeared consistent with those stated intentions, despite the fact that some assets were held in joint ownership.
Looking at the totality of the evidence, including the fact that Rheta executed powers of attorney that treated both children equally, the court found that “the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Rheta wanted both her children, and in their absence, her children’s children, to share equally in the money that she and her late husband had accumulated.” The court also noted that Rheta had an excellent relationship with both children and that both children had a positive relationship with each other.
The court also notes that at the time of Tom’s death, Rheta was not in a position to clarify what her wishes were in respect of her estate in light of her son’s passing. Still, the court relied on the fulsome history and ample evidence to support its conclusion that Rheta’s consistent wish was to treat her children (and those children’s children) equally.
Thus, based on the evidence of the source of the funds, the history of the familial relationship, and the Deceased’s consistent estate planning, the presumption that the joint account was impressed with a resulting trust was not rebutted, and those funds fell into Rheta’s estate to be distributed in accordance with the terms of her will.
Menu
Written by: WEL Partners
Posted on: November 6, 2014
Categories: Commentary
In the recent decision of Coulston v. Dixon, Justice Sloan was asked to consider whether a joint account passed by right of survivorship to the sole surviving joint owner or whether a resulting trust applied such that the asset passed to the Deceased’s estate.
The Deceased, Rheta, died in 2012 at the impressive age of 101 years. Rheta had two children: a son Tom, and a daughter
Rheta’s son Tom died the year before Rheta died and his children commenced these proceedings.
By all accounts, Rheta had a positive relationship with both of her children. They got along very well, spent time together, often going on holidays as a family together. As Rheta aged, Tom and her daughter helped her with financial matters as she increasingly required assistance.
Over her lifetime, Rheta had set up several assets in joint ownership with her children. She and Tom had bought a property together in Bobcaygeon in 1989 as joint tenants. While Tom made a nominal contribution to the purchase, Rheta put in some $183,000.00.
In 1994, Rheta set up a joint investment account with her daughter. The entire sum of $73,000.00 was contributed by Rheta.
Rheta also executed a will in 1994 that provided that the residue of her estate was to pass to her children equally. The will specifically referred to the joint Bobcaygeon property and the joint investment account and directed that the daughter was to receive the difference in value of the assets from the estate such that she and Tom received the same value under the estate.
In 2000, Rheta executed another will that provided that the residue of the estate was to pass equally to both of her children.
Both wills provided that in the event that Tom or the daughter predeceased Rheta, their share would pass to their respective children per stirpes.
In 2000, a joint account was set up with Tom, the daughter and Rheta as joint owners. The funds from the account formerly held by the daughter and her mother were transferred to this account. A year later, the Bobcaygeon property was sold, and the monies that Rheta had put into its purchase were deposited to the three-way joint account. All of the monies in the account came from Rheta.
In 2004, Rheta’s condominium was sold and she moved into a nursing home to help her deal with her mental and physical challenges. Rheta had dementia which worsened over the years. By 2007, Rheta could not recognize her children on the telephone. In 2011, Tom died, but because of her diminished mental state, nobody told Rheta of his passing.
At the time of Rheta’s death in 2012, nearly all of her assets were in the joint account. As Tom had died, at the time of Rheta’s death, the account was held at that time jointly by Rheta and her daughter.
Tom’s children brought this application to ask the court to determine whether the joint account (which held most of Rheta’s assets) passed by right of survivorship to the daughter or whether the presumption of resulting trust applied to that account.
The lawyer who drafted Rheta’s Wills provided evidence that Rheta had told him that she wanted all her assets liquidated and distributed equally between her children. The terms of both wills appeared consistent with those stated intentions, despite the fact that some assets were held in joint ownership.
Looking at the totality of the evidence, including the fact that Rheta executed powers of attorney that treated both children equally, the court found that “the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Rheta wanted both her children, and in their absence, her children’s children, to share equally in the money that she and her late husband had accumulated.” The court also noted that Rheta had an excellent relationship with both children and that both children had a positive relationship with each other.
The court also notes that at the time of Tom’s death, Rheta was not in a position to clarify what her wishes were in respect of her estate in light of her son’s passing. Still, the court relied on the fulsome history and ample evidence to support its conclusion that Rheta’s consistent wish was to treat her children (and those children’s children) equally.
Thus, based on the evidence of the source of the funds, the history of the familial relationship, and the Deceased’s consistent estate planning, the presumption that the joint account was impressed with a resulting trust was not rebutted, and those funds fell into Rheta’s estate to be distributed in accordance with the terms of her will.
Author
View all posts