Supreme Court of Nova Scotia
Citation: David v. Beals Estate, 2015 NSSC 288
Date: 20151022
Docket: Halifax No. 433776
Registry: Halifax
Between:
Julia Marie David, Shenner May Williams, Sydney Willis, Greta Beals, Leonard Dion Beals, Gwendolyn Beals, Garfield Beals Jr., Lavinia Thompson, Murphy Beals, Gerald Beals, Myles Nelson Beals, Cheryl Francis, Ranosker Beals, Phillip Fraser, Elma Fraser, Saunderson Fraser, Clay Fraser, Laverne Beals, Wade Beals, Derrek Beals, Wanda Beals, Denise Beals, and Caunise Smith
Applicants
v.
Myles Dominic Beals in his capacity as Executor of The Estate of the Late
Garfield Beals
Respondent
Library Heading
|
Judge:
|
The Honourable Justice Arthur J. LeBlanc |
|
Heard:
|
May 11 and 12, 2015, in Halifax, Nova Scotia |
|
Final Written Submissions: |
April 14, 2015
|
|
Decision: |
October 22, 2015 |
|
Subject: |
Wills; application for variation; dependant's relief legislation |
|
Summary: |
The applicants brought an application for dependants' relief under s. 3(1) of the Testator's Family Maintenance Act seeking to vary the terms of the last will and testament of their father. The testator's estate was comprised of real estate worth $46,000. The testator left his entire estate to his grandson, who had lived with the testator until his death and had assisted the testator with household chores and personal care. |
|
Issues: |
Were the applicants entitled to relief under s. 3(1) of the Act? |
|
Result: |
Application dismissed. Although the applicants were natural-born children of the testator and were clearly dependants within the meaning of the Act, they failed to show on a balance of probabilities that the testator had not made adequate provision for their proper maintenance and support. The estate was relatively small. The applicants provided minimal evidence of their needs and financial circumstances. The grandson had a strong moral claim, based on his having lived with the testator until his death, and assisting with household chores and personal care. The testator had chosen to benefit one person greatly, rather than benefiting many people very little. This fell within the range of what was appropriate and accordingly the Act should not be used to interfere with the testator's testamentary freedom. |
THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET.