ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Estate Planning Blogs -> Toronto Estate Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Estate Planning

: Toronto Estate Law Blog

Videchak v. Giarratano - An exception to Pecore v. Pecore?

By Hull and Hull LLP

ADVERTISEMENTS

Today's blog looks at the case of Videchak v. Giarratano, 2009 CanLII 29914 (Ont. S.C.), which deals with, amongst other things, the common situation of an adult child holding assets jointly with a parent. Pecore v. Pecore, [2007] 1 S.C.R. 795 (S.C.C.) would tell us that in such situations, after the death of the parent, it is up to an adult child, who is not a dependant, to rebut the presumption that a resulting trust arises such that the asset, received for no consideration, is held for the benefit of the estate (that is, where the transfer into joint ownership is made for no consideration, the onus is placed on the adult child to demonstrate that a gift was intended).

In this case, the Ontario Superior Court held that the presumption applied to a joint bank account held by the Deceased together with one of her children, Anna. While Anna and two of her siblings, Joe and Nina, gave evidence that they were all aware that the joint account was to go to Anna on their mother's death, there were no bank or other documents and no independent persons to provide evidence upon which a court could make a finding that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted.  The Judge found that it is well known that elderly people have a joint bank account in order to make sure that debts are paid on time, and to ease the pain of probate. The account was found to be an asset of the estate.

However, in this case the Court came to the opposite conclusion with respect to a GIC jointly held by the Deceased with Joe and Nina. According to the Judge, the GIC clearly stated the three names on it and was different than the bank account 'because it is basically a savings item and not to be used to pay ongoing debts.' The Judge held that the GIC document spoke for itself and the two owners of it at the death of the Deceased were Nina and Joe. One might argue that this case seems to exempt jointly held GIC's from the application of Pecore.

 

Thanks for reading,

Craig

Full post as published by Toronto Estate Law Blog on November 24, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0155 secs (new cache)