Ex-Mountie wife killer costs family $45K fighting estate

This has to be one of the saddest and most frustrating stories I've heard in a long time.

CBC is reporting that Keith Weins, a former Mountie from BC who is in jail, having been convicted of killing his common law wife by shooting her during an argument, is suing her estate for a share of the assets. He is representing himself (either because he can't afford a lawyer or couldn't find one to take his case) and, in my opinion, is badly abusing the judicial system. Click here to read the CBC story.

The article says that the executor has so far spent $45,000 defending the estate from the husband's claims. It doesn't sound as if it's nearing a conclusion, either. Everyone in the family is upset, horrified, and frustrated.

The husband appears to be taking advantage of every loophole and every opportunity to delay and aggravate matters. I suppose when you're behind bars you have more time to devote to this kind of idiocy than most people do, and since he isn't using a lawyer he doesn't care what it costs.

Though most cases are not as dramatic as this one, I certainly see a number of cases in which one party is simply grabbing at every possible legal avenue for very little gain. They don't get financial gain from it; in fact, most times they lose money. It seems sometimes that all they really get out of it is annoying or upsetting the other parties. Perhaps what they hope to gain is causing the other people to be so fed up, they'll quit.

These are the days I wish we could tighten up the court system to prevent abuse. However, I don't really see how it can be done without limiting access by those who honestly do need the court's help. If only we could bring back common sense and common decency, maybe people would stop using the courts as hammers to hit each other with.

The attached photo is of Lynn Kalmring, the deceased wife. The photo accompanied the article on the CBC website and is described as a family photo

How to close online accounts and services when someone dies

Executors, you will thank me for this one. I'm attaching a link to one of the most useful articles I've seen in a long time. It lists in alphabetical order about 180 different digital accounts and plans, with instructions on how to close those plans if the owner has passed away. Some are simple and others are not, but this list should save executors hours of frustration and searching. Click here to see the article.

It covers everything from Facebook to eBay.

You'll notice that pretty much every account of every kind requires you to know the deceased's email address and password. A few offer alternate means of closing accounts when you don't know the password but not many.

I'm shocked at what my lawyer charged me for estate work - what can I do?

Unfortunately, legal services are expensive. This reader wrote to me about his situation in which he was taken surprise by his lawyer's bill. Is the bill reasonable? It depends. Can he do something about it? Probably. Below is his question followed by my comments.

"I have an estate matter worth $350,000 and the matter is a little complex. Now my lawyer wants $80,000. There was no retainer, nothing, and I'm very shocked for an estate matter to cost me $80k. Is  this reasonable? Should I challenge this legal fee? My lawyer isn't talking to me anymore."

Let's start with the question of whether $80,000 is reasonable. The answer, of course, depends on what work the lawyer did for you. You haven't said you're the executor but it sounds as if you are so I'll proceed on that assumption.

Did the lawyer ONLY apply for probate or administration? If so, did you supply all of the information yourself or did the lawyer contact banks, insurance companies, etc to obtain information and values? Did the lawyer call family members to get information such as addresses and dates of birth or did you provide that? Did you provide the original will or did the lawyer have to obtain it? Did the lawyer have to hunt down witnesses to the will? All of this makes a big difference if the lawyer is charging by the hour.

If the only thing the lawyer did for you was apply for probate, then $80,000 in fees seems high. It's about 23% of the estate.

After the lawyer obtained the grant of probate or administration from the court, did you just take the document and go work on the estate by yourself, or did the lawyer do some of the work for you? Work done on the estate such as dealing with beneficiaries, negotiating with creditors, paying estate bills, handling estate funds in trust, etc are all over and above whatever you paid for probate. Again, those tasks would be on an hourly rate.

You mentioned that the estate is a little complex. This could mean anything from  a business to wind up to a court challenge of some kind. If the lawyer dealt with any land transactions (transfer to beneficiaries or sale to third parties) or sale of a business, that's over and above probate fees too because that's different work entirely.

Usually on an estate, the big cost is litigation. If there was any kind of court application, that would be a big expense. The lawyer would have to prepare documents, perhaps do legal research, exchange information with other parties, negotiate on your behalf, attend court, and so on.

So, since I don't really know how much of this work the lawyer did for you, I can't say whether the fee portion of the bill is reasonable.

Let's take a look at the structure of the bill itself. The bill should break down the items into three categories, those being fees charged by the law firm, disbursements, and GST/HST.

I am assuming that the $80,000 includes disbursements. Those are out-of-pocket expenses that the lawyer pays on your behalf. The biggest one is probably the probate fee that the lawyer would have paid at the court and billed back to you. Another large one would be the fees that the lawyer paid at the land titles office to transfer any real estate for you. If the lawyer had to do searches, those cost money too, as do things like service of documents on people. If your lawyer charges (as many do) for every disbursement including photocopies, printing, postage, couriers, etc on top of the court and land registry fees, that could easily make up $10,000 of the $80,000 bill. Particularly once you add in GST or HST.

Before you decide about challenging the fee, make sure you know how much was actually fees and how much is something else.

It seems unbelievable to me that you would have had no discussion of any kind with the lawyer about what he/she charges or what he/she was supposed to do for you. Even if your lawyer charges $300 an hour, that's more than 200 hours (assuming $10k in disbursements/tax). Were you not aware of what the lawyer was doing? I assume you must have gone into the office at least occasionally to sign things and see what was happening.

When you say there was "no retainer", I am not sure whether you mean there was no money requested up front, or whether you mean the lawyer did not give you a retainer letter. I suspect it's the latter. If so, that's the lawyer's omission. It doesn't mean that the lawyer can't charge you, but as you can see, it leads to disagreements over the bill.

Normally I would suggest that when there is a dispute over the bill, you start by discussing it with the lawyer. However, it seems that ship has sailed, since you said you and your lawyer are no longer speaking.

If you are considering challenging the bill, I suggest that you decide what it is about the bill that is wrong. Just saying "it's too high" is not enough. Why is it too high? Was work done that you didn't ask the lawyer to do? Is the hourly rate higher than the lawyer told you it would be? Was the number of hours put in excessive? Was something billed twice? Remember that if you challenge the bill, you have to make your case as to why it's too high, and the lawyer gets to argue the other side of the story. So make sure you can make a good case.

If it's an error that can be corrected, write to the lawyer and ask that it be corrected. What have you got to lose? If that doesn't work, you can participate in a process called taxation of your bill. This is a process whereby an officer of the court called a Taxing Officer or Taxing Master will call a meeting of you and the lawyer, and you will explain to the Taxing Officer why it's too high. The lawyer will be present. Once the Taxing Officer has examined the bill, looked at any supporting material (such as a retainer letter where there is one), and has heard both sides, he/she will decide whether or not to reduce your bill. There is no guarantee that your bill will be reduced.

As I've said so many times in so many situations - good communication is the key. This is why I bill my estate clients every two weeks, and send a retainer letter. Nobody can then say they didn't know what my bill would be.

Joint property cannot be clawed back to satisfy deceased's debt

I recently came across an article by Toronto lawyer Suzana Popovic-Montag that talks about what happens to joint property owned by a deceased person whose estate does not have enough funds to pay all debts. This is something that many executors must deal with, and it certainly is of interest to spouses everywhere.

The article is about the case in which a husband and wife in Ontario jointly owned their matrimonial home. The husband died and due to the fact that the estate could not pay the man's debts, the estate went into bankruptcy. The creditors attempted to have the house clawed back into the estate to pay the debts. The debts in question were not debts against the house (e.g. a mortgage or a secured line of credit). The went to court and the judge decided that the house could not be clawed back. To read the article with more detail about this, click here. The case itself is called Re Cameron and can be read by clicking here.

The gist of the decision is that the court considered that upon the death of a joint owner, there was no "transfer" of the house to the surviving owner. It was rather that the deceased person's ownership was simply extinguished, leaving one owner already on title.

This should be comforting news to anyone out there who is worried about losing his or her home due to their spouse's insufficient estate.

Does a man in possession of deeds necessarily own the property?

Well, you readers never let me get  bored, that's for sure. Here's an interesting question I received recently. I know that lots of people like to take care of legal transactions on their own to save money on legal fees, but this is taking it to extremes!

"My husband's uncle passed away with no will but gave all deeds and belongings to a stranger . My husband befriended this stranger and received all deeds from him. The letter given to him by my husband's uncle was not passed over to my husband. This man decided not to claim the land. This uncle who has passed has a surviving sister & brother in their late years. My husband feels because the deeds were given to him he has the right to claim all land because of the deeds. I disagree but wish to have an expert opinion on this legal issue."

This is one of the oddest questions I've ever had on this blog. I have never before seen people passing around land deeds as if they were no more than trading cards.

Your husband's uncle was entitled to give away his personal possessions as he did. However, it takes a bit more formal paperwork to transfer real estate. Currently the land belongs to whoever's name is on the title. The fact that someone else physically has the deed in his or her possession does not in any way give that person ownership of the land. Having your hands on the deed means nothing. Ownership of land comes with legal rights which are not extinguished by simply giving someone the deed. In addition, all transactions regarding land must be in writing.

It's possible that the "letter" you refer to might contain the right information, signatures, etc to qualify as a transfer of land, or perhaps an offer to transfer land. If it's just a letter from one guy to another, I doubt it, but I haven't seen it so I have to admit it's a possibility.

Based on what you have said here, I don't think "the stranger" ever owned the property in question. You said he decided not to claim the land, which I believe means he didn't register anything at the land registry to put the title into his name. Even if your husband had the letter you mentioned, I don't see how that would help anyone since the letter didn't mention your husband, and you haven't said anything about any documents transferring the property to your husband.

I do not believe your husband has any rights whatsoever based on the paperwork he has. If he really does think he has some claim to the land, I suggest that he take the paperwork to a lawyer for a review and discussion. If he cannot prove that the land was transferred to hiim, it should legally be divided among the uncle's siblings. I'm guessing that nobody has come forward to act as the administrator of the estate, but someone should do that and take control of this land situation.

I'm a funeral director - screaming fights, drunken propositions, and blasting Nirvana are part of my job

You'd think that by now I'd be used to almost anything families can come up with. Yet an article I recently read called "I'm a funeral director - screaming fights, drunken propositions, and blasting Nirvana are part of my job" by Morty Portaro was both hilarious and eye-opening. All of you people who tell me you're embarrassed by your family should read this because you will instantly feel that your lot are not so bad after all. Click here to read the article.

Ordering pizza to the funeral? Wearing a bikini? Hitting your brother with a lamp at the funeral  home? You'd think you wouldn't have to tell people not to do such things, but apparently we do.

How can I ensure my estate goes to my son from my first marriage?

I received a short but interesting question from a reader recently that I thought would be of interest to many of you. The reader is thinking about how to ensure that a child from a first marriage eventually inherits from the reader's estate. This is a topic that is on the minds of many people these days, since marriages and families come in all shapes and sizes. Read on to see the question and my response:

"How can I ensure my estate goes to my son from first marriage? The second marriage has not produced any child and I do not want to leave my son in jeopardy."

I'm glad you asked this question. The worst will I have ever seen in 30 years in this business was a brief one made by a woman in a second marriage. Regarding her son from her first marriage, she said in the will "I make no provision for my son because I trust my husband to look after him". Guess what? The husband didn't look after him.

If you leave your entire estate to your second spouse, there is absolutely nothing stopping that person from leaving the estate to whoever he or she wants. This could be another spouse after you, or the children of another spouse (in other words, someone you've never even met or heard of) while your children get nothing. That's completely legal unless your children who are left out are either minors or disabled adults.

This can be a tough topic to bring up. I find that many clients stubbornly insist that their new spouse simply would not ever leave the kids without an inheritance. I think this is because they absolutely don't want to consider that they are making any kind of mistake in choosing that second spouse. I do understand that, but I urge parents in second marriages to put the kids first. What's worse - risking a small offence to a new spouse, or risking that your children will never inherit anything from you?

The reader who sent me this question is obviously sold on the idea of protecting the children and wants to know about how that can be done. I have a couple of ideas.

Option 1 - The simplest idea is that you portion your estate in your will so that your children receive a share of it on your death, as opposed to leaving it to your spouse and hoping that he or she will pass it on to them. This is easier when there is plenty of money, but a little bit tougher for us ordinary folks who don't have millions to divide up.

When thinking about dividing up your assets, think about  how you can make the most of them. For example, if you  have an RRSP or RRIF, you can roll that over on your death to your spouse without incurring tax at the time. If  you give the same RRSP or RRIF to your children on your death, there would be tax on it. If you have life insurance, think about whether it's beneficial to leave it to your spouse or your children or your estate. Make sure you take your pension into account because most likely that is going to be payable to your spouse. If you own a business, take the time to think about who is getting the shares of it and who is going to run it. I have this kind of discussion with parents in second marriages quite often. It's a bit like putting together a puzzle so that all the pieces fit nicely together.

If your children from the first marriage are minors, their shares will be held in trust until they reach the age of majority or later. Choose your trustee carefully.

Option 2 - Another idea is to use your will to set up a trust that will contain some or all of your assets. You could set it up so that your spouse would have the use of those assets during his or her lifetime, and then when the spouse passes away, the asset would go to the children. This is often done with a house, and sometimes with a cabin. The idea is to ensure that the spouse continues to live in the marital home but also to ensure that one day the kids will have the house.

Trusts are not difficult to set up in your will as long as they are written with care and forethought. There are some things to consider, though. First of all, your children might have to wait for many years to receive their inheritance. Secondly, if the trust is not well-drafted, there could be disputes about who pays for things like property tax while the spouse lives there. Thirdly, you risk the value of the asset being reduced over time. Fourthly, your executor and trustee would have to continue to manage the trust for many years to come, which would involve expenses.

Having said all of those negative things, I do have to reiterate that a trust can be a really good solution for certain situations.

When considering setting up a trust like this, look carefully at what would actually be in the trust. If you own your home jointly with your spouse, you cannot put it in a trust. Same goes for any money that you hold jointly. Only assets in your own name could be put into the trust. Talk this over with your estate planning lawyer or accountant.

Option 3 - You can choose to give some of your assets to your children of the first marriage while you are still alive. This of course can only be done if you can afford to give those assets away. Also, there are certain assets that won't be available while you're alive, such as  your life insurance policy.

The upside to doing this is that you get to see your children enjoy the assets. In addition, planning to give away some assets while you're alive tends to lead to some very useful conversations about what will work for the children. For example, one of the children might want a piece of land or cabin that you were thinking about selling, while another might prefer to have cash. If you put together what they want with what you wish to do for them, you might just come up with a plan to advance something to them in a way that pleases everyone.

You might want to involve an accountant in these discussions to ensure that you do not accidentally trigger a tax hit for yourself.

Option 4 - This is something that can be combined with any of the three previous options. Consider signing a prenuptial agreement in which both you and your new spouse can set out your expectations of what will happen when one of you passes away. Doing this kind of planning may include you or your new spouse waiving certain rights that a spouse might otherwise receive, such as the right to keep the matrimonial home.

As you can see, there are ways of ensuring that your son from your first marriage is protected. Of course it depends on the child's age and the assets you own, but I encourage you to sit down with an estate lawyer and talk out the possibilities.