Court acknowledged his caregiving contributions but it did not justify a larger share of the estate
In a recent decision, the BC Court of Appeal dismissed a son’s claim for a larger share of his mother’s estate, which he argued was justified by his caregiving contributions and alleged promises of inheritance.
In Rawlins v. Rawlins Estate, 2024 BCCA 376, Roy Douglas Rawlins’ challenged the division of his late mother’s estate, arguing that the trial judge erred by not granting him his mother’s entire house and investments. He claimed that his contributions to the property and care for his parents entitled him to more than an equal share with his two brothers.
Rawlins’ mother’s will had divided her $2.5 million estate equally among her three sons. At trial, Rawlins sought to vary the will, citing unjust enrichment and a moral claim, arguing he provided significant care for his parents and contributed to maintaining the family home. He also claimed his parents promised him the house and investments. The trial judge partially agreed, awarding him $115,000 for unjust enrichment but upheld the will’s equal division for the remainder of the estate.
In his appeal, Rawlins argued that the trial judge undervalued his contributions and failed to properly consider his moral claim and evidence suggesting his parents intended him to inherit the house and investments.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence. The judge determined Rawlins’ contributions to the property were minor and that his caregiving role, while significant, did not justify awarding him the house. The judge also concluded that Rawlins’ claim of promised inheritance was largely based on subjective belief and lacked reliable corroboration.
The appellate court noted the trial judge’s adverse credibility findings, which highlighted inconsistencies in Rawlins’ testimony and a lack of evidence supporting his claims about property contributions and inheritance promises. The court emphasized that appellate judges must defer to trial judges on factual findings unless there is palpable and overriding error, which was not established in this case.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal dismissed Rawlins’ appeal, affirming the $115,000 award for unjust enrichment and the equal division of the remaining estate between the brothers.
