THE AMBIVALENT ROLE OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN THE EARLY STAGES OF ESTATE LITIGATION
This is my first blog as a proud new lawyer at this fantastic firm, and I’ve decided to write about the role of financial institutions – banks in particular – in the early stages of estate litigation. The reason for this topic is in that this past year, banks have managed to play a big role in some of my and my colleagues’ files despite having no stake in the litigation.
I’ve created two scenarios, based upon these experiences, which will illustrate how banks can shape the early stages of estate litigation. My hope is that these scenarios can aid in understanding what banks may or may not do – which in turn, may help frame client expectations and inform early strategic decisions.
Scenario #1
Your client is the estate trustee and residue beneficiary of an estate. They have been acting for well over a year and have disposed of all the estate property and have distributed multiple cash legacies. All that remains is the residue. The accountant is waiting for a clearance certificate and anticipates no issues in that regard.
Your client decides to withdraw the residue now that everything appears OK.
When your client arrives at the bank, they are informed that the estate account has been frozen. The bank received a letter which indicated that ‘probate was being challenged’. The bank refuses to disclose any further information.
Your client calls you, obviously very concerned and stressed. They were really relying on this money. So, you contact the bank and they inform you of a few things:
- The letter did NOT enclose a court order, judgment, or writ authorizing the freeze.
- The letter was from a lawyer, who appeared to be representing a friend of the deceased.
- The friend was seeking to challenge the Will; however, they had not commenced proceedings of any kind.
- They refused to disclose the contact information of the lawyer until they obtained the other lawyer’s consent.
The authority that the bank was relying upon to freeze the account was the terms and conditions of their personal chequing accounts. As the estate account had formerly been a personal account, the estate account was bound to those terms. The terms allow the bank to unilaterally freeze accounts, without notice to account holders, if it is ‘unclear’ who the funds in the account belong to. The ‘freezing clause’ is a standard form term in all personal account agreements across the ‘Big 5’ Canadian banks.
You write a letter, demonstrating that your client is the only person with authority to act and arguing that the residue is held in trust for them, but the bank does not care. They advise that they ‘take no position’, and that they will be requiring either a court order or the consent of all parties, to unfreeze the account.
This is a paradoxical non-position: inert yet immensely prejudicial. Schrodinger would be proud.
To be fair to the bank and their policy, there is an obvious concern for liability. Yet the same terms that authorize the freeze also contain a waiver and indemnity, and where a bank obeys the authority of probate, who could realistically fault the bank for doing so?
Overall, this was a fantastic early victory for the Will challenger. Without going to Court, they’ve managed to obtain essentially a Mareva injunction. Where there is a risk of dissipation, parties should consider writing, at first instance, to all banks where the testator may have had accounts. The banks’ internal policies, terms, and conditions regarding personal accounts and estate accounts may result in a timely and effective freeze.
Scenario #2
Your client is a director and minority shareholder of a family business. The family business has been struggling with no business or activity in many months, but it remains the beneficiary of a sizeable life insurance policy insuring the life of your client’s father. Your client’s father was also a director and a majority shareholder of the family business. The father’s Will appoints your client’s brother as Estate Trustee. Your client and his brother are residue beneficiaries.
Your client’s father passes away, and the policy becomes payable. It is not technically an estate asset, although it benefits the family business to which both your client and his brother are entitled.
Unbeknownst to your client, the brother, who has yet to obtain probate, writes to the bank asking for the business accounts to be frozen based upon his authority as the named Estate Trustee and expressing concern that your client may steal company funds. The brother is highly suspicious and does not trust your client in the slightest. The brother believes that your client will abscond with the life insurance funds through his position as director/shareholder. The brother eventually intends to pursue legal action on behalf of the estate against your client and claims there is troubling evidence that your client has committed wrongdoing.
You help your client investigate and you later find out that the bank denied his brother’s demand. Their position was that as his brother was not an authorized signatory to the corporate accounts, the bank would not freeze the account without a Court order. It turns out that the terms and conditions of corporate accounts are much less draconian than personal accounts, and further, they impose a burden upon the corporate accountholder to ensure account security. When considering requests to freeze corporate accounts, it seems the banks rely solely upon who is an authorized signatory (and a handy waiver/indemnity).
Perhaps if the brother had probate, the bank would have listened. However, the challenger in Scenario #1 certainly did not have probate – and yet the bank still felt compelled to freeze the account.
I’m sure I will encounter more scenarios such as these in the future, where banks will influence the nature of litigation early on with profound consequences. Knowing that banks will take these types of ‘non-positions’ can help frame client expectations and encourage early action where it benefits client interests.
Nothing contained in this post constitutes legal advice or establishes a solicitor-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding your legal rights or legal obligations, you should consult a lawyer.