The court nullified a will due to lawyers' inadequate advice
The Court of King's Bench of Manitoba recently invalidated a will due to lawyers' significant failures to ensure their client understood her estate planning choices.
In Black-Donaldson et al. v. The Estate of Helen Small, 2024 MBKB 56, Helen Small, who died in 2019, had altered her will multiple times, involving different lawyers with each update. The dispute centred around two primary versions of her will—the initial draft by Ian Restall before 2006 and a subsequent one by Sarah Rentz in 2014, later amended in 2016 through a codicil supervised by Robert Arthur. Helen had no children and named various family members and friends as beneficiaries in these wills.
Originally, Helen’s assets would be transferred to her husband, then to her nieces, nephews, and sister if he predeceased her. However, the later Rentz will significantly shift asset distribution, heavily favouring Ralph Conia, a friend and former financial planner, over her family. This will allocated the majority of her investments and the sales proceeds from her condominium to him.
Following Helen's death, the court granted the Rentz will and the Arthur codicil probate. Family members expressed surprise at the new will’s terms, which substantially benefited Ralph Conia, and contested its validity on the grounds that Helen lacked full understanding or approval of its contents.
The Court of King’s Bench scrutinized whether Helen possessed the necessary knowledge and approval for the changes to her will. It became evident that the lawyers had neither adequately probed into nor documented Helen’s comprehension of the significant changes in estate distribution. The court criticized the lawyers for their superficial engagements, highlighting their failure to ensure that Helen understood the effects of the will’s terms, particularly concerning major asset distributions and their tax consequences.
In light of the inadequate advice and questionable circumstances surrounding the drafting of the will and codicil, the judge decided to invalidate both documents. The court underscored that a lawyer’s duty extends beyond merely recording a client's instructions. It requires ensuring that the client fully understands the implications of those instructions.
The decision also addressed the principle of ademption, which nullifies specific bequests in a will if the item is no longer part of the estate at the testator’s death. In this case, Helen had sold her condominium before her demise, rendering the related bequest void. The court rejected an attempt to rectify this issue, citing a lack of basis for modifying Helen's clear instructions.
