SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Citation: Williams v. Slaunwhite et al., 2023 NSSM 59

Date: 20230815

Docket: 522790

Registry: Halifax

Between:

Tracy Williams

Claimant

- and -

Carol Beth Slaunwhite and Rhonda Gail Roche

Defendants

Adjudicator:        Eric K. Slone

Heard:                 Via zoom on August 2, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia

Appearances:       For the Claimant, self-represented

For the Defendants, self-represented

By the Court:

[1]              The Claimant and the two Defendants are sisters. They are three of the five children of Doreen Campbell (“Doreen”), who died in 2021. Their sister Lynne Campbell was present at the hearing and testified. A brother Grant Campbell was not present.

[2]              For convenience I will refer to the four sisters by their first names, Tracy, Beth, Rhonda and Lynne.

[3]              This case concerns (mostly) a mahogany bed that belonged to Doreen, which Tracy believes should have been given to her on her mother’s death. It is a 3/4 sized, wooden bed frame with a somewhat attractive headboard and footboard. It probably dates from the 1950's. It was originally part of a bedroom set, together with two dressers and a vanity, which Doreen had inherited from her own mother in about 1985. At that time, Doreen gave Tracy one dresser and the vanity, and kept the bed and a smaller “low-boy” dresser for her own use.

[4]              Tracy maintains that Doreen repeatedly promised that on her death the balance of the set would be hers. Tracy’s daughter Doreen MacLean confirmed that she had heard her grandmother say that the bedroom set would eventually go to Tracy.

[5]              Two women who provided home care for Doreen over several of her later years confirmed that they had heard similar statements.

[6]              At some point that is not clear to me, Tracy obtained the low-boy dresser so the only part of the set in contention is the bed.

[7]              Tracy also contends that she has been denied a second key to a car that she was given, and also several minor (even trivial) items.

[8]              It is unfortunately the case that relations between Tracy and at least two of her sisters have soured for reasons that probably have nothing to do with the subject matter of this claim.

[9]              Rhonda disputes that it was her mother’s clear intention to give the bed to Tracy. She testified that her mother told her several years ago that she was being pressured to sign a document promising the bed to Tracy. She also quoted her mother as saying that Tracy was a hoarder and that the bed would just rot in her basement. She said that her mother made her promise that she would not allow Tracy to take it. Rhonda herself took the bed in February 2021 and has it stored in her house. She says she hopes to use it at some point.

[10]         She described the bed as old and scratched and thinks it is of sentimental value only. She produced a letter from an antiques appraiser ascribing it with minimal financial value. This is a far cry from the value that Tracy ascribes to it, which is $3,200.00.

[11]         Rhonda acknowledged that her mother may have wanted Tracy to have the bed at some point but believes that she changed her mind.

[12]         Beth testified that she actually thought the bedroom set would eventually be hers, or perhaps her brother’s. She insisted that she did not take the missing car key and has done nothing to Tracy that would merit a claim against her.

[13]         Beth testified that she never heard her mother mention that Tracy was intended to have the bed.

[14]         Lynne testified that she was named as executor of her mother’s will. She said that she heard conflicting versions of her mother’s intentions from her sisters. She preferred to stay out of the controversy. In the end, she knew that Rhonda took the bed and did not raise any objections.

[15]         Doreen’s professionally drafted will was put into evidence. It does not mention the bedroom set. Although she had been told by her lawyer that she could leave a signed memorandum to her executor setting out her intentions for the disposal of personal property, she never did so.

[16]         The only writing mentioning the bedroom set is a small handwritten note that is unsigned, undated and somewhat ambiguous. There is a suggestion that Doreen was pressured into writing this. For all these reasons I give it no weight.

Legal principles

[17]         Every first-year law student learns that mere promises to make a gift are unenforceable, unless they are either contained (or confirmed) in a valid will or rise to the level of a contractual obligation supported by “consideration.” It was succinctly put this way by the Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Rinzler v. Grossman Estate, 1993 CanLII 16942 (NS SC)

at para 15:

But promises are either based on some contractual obligation or they are simply gratuitous with no intention to create legal liabilities.

[18]         Accordingly, even if I were satisfied that Doreen had a clear intention until the very end to leave the bed to Tracy, there would be no basis to award it to her. It was, at best, a gratuitous promise. And I am left in some doubt as to Doreen’s actual intentions toward the end of her life. For reasons that will never be known, she appeared to say different things to different people. She had the means to make her true intentions known, but never did so in a legally effective way.

[19]         Even if there were a claim to be made, there are two further obstacles:

a.                  She arguably sued the wrong party.

b.                 Her claim is barred by the Limitation of Actions Act.

[20]         A more credible claim might have been made against the executor, who in this case was Lynne. Her complaint could have been that Lynne had a duty to ensure that her mother’s wishes were honoured and that no one else took property that they should not have taken.

[21]         Lastly, Tracy knew by February 11, 2021, that the bed was gone from her mother’s house. Yet she did not file her claim until April 12, 2023. This is outside the two-year limitation that applies to most civil claims.

[22]         As for the other items she claims, I am satisfied that neither of the Defendants kept a car key, and any other minor items did not get taken by them either,

Order

[23]         For all of the above reasons, the claims against both of the Defendants are dismissed.

Eric K. Slone, Small Claims Court Adjudicator