Will, Estate, Trust Disputes
A summary of the types of potential Estate Challenges:
1. Dependant Support Claims pursuant to Part V of the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26 ("SLRA") (go to section)
2. Unjust Enrichment Claims (go to section)
3. Constructive Trust Claims (go to section)
4. Quantum Meruit Claims (go to section)
5. Family Law Act Election pursuant to s. 5(2) of the Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, as amended (go to section)
6. Claims pursuant to s. 44 (liquidated claim) and s.45 (un-liquidated claim) of the Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E21, as amended (go to section)
7. Challenges against an estate on the grounds that the testator: (go to section)
a) Lacked testamentary capacity;
b) Did not have knowledge and approval of the contents of the will and suspicious circumstances;
c) Was unduly influenced;
d) Did not duly execute the will;
e) Fraud or forgery.
8. Solicitor's Negligence Claims arising from will drafting ‚ drafting errors, improper witnessing of a will, failure to ascertain and document testamentary capacity, and completing the will instructions in a timely manner (go to section)
9. Constitutional challenges in estate matters, common-law and same sex spouses, rights to equalization payment under Family Law Act, Succession Law Reform Act, Estates Act, rights on intestacy, revocation of Will on marriage (go to section)
10. Trust Disputes (go to section)
1. Dependant Support Claims
A Dependant Support Claim is a claim made against the estate of a deceased person by a dependant who meets the definition of a dependant and the test under the Succession Law Reform Act (the "SLRA").
A determination as to who qualifies and meets the test of a "dependant" must be made in accordance with a two-part test set out in s. 57 of the Succession Law Reform Act.
For the purposes of Part V and an application for support, a dependant is defined as a spouse, parent, child, or brother or sister of the deceased, to whom, immediately before death, the deceased was providing, or had a legal obligation to provide support.
Section 1 of the SLRA address the definition of 'spouse' to include two persons who are married to each other, or who have entered into a marriage that is voidable or void, and two persons who have cohabitated continuously for not less than 3 years or cohabited in a relationship of some permanence, if they are the natural or adoptive parents of a child. And with respect to the definition of 'child', it includes a grandchild and anyone else the deceased has demonstrated a settled intention to treat as a child of the family. There is no age restriction on children who are eligible to apply for support for the estate of the parent.
In respect of legislation entitling a parent to claim support from a child, both the Family Law Act and the Succession Law Reform Act provide for parental support in prescribed circumstances. Where a child is still living, the parents' claim for support must be made under the Family Law Act. Where a child has predeceased a parent, the parents' claim for support against a child is pursuant to the Succession Law Reform Act.
Support includes financial, physical and moral support as set out in the case law concerning dependant support claims.
The deceased must have been providing support immediately before death, or must have been under a legal obligation to provide support either through statute court order or at common law.
Section 58 of the Succession Law Reform Act comprises the second step in analyzing whether or not the deceased has made adequate provision for the proper support of his or her dependants.
A court must evaluate what has been given under the terms of the Will, or on an intestacy, and then determine what is adequate support.
The definition of what constitutes adequate support is a factual inquiry based upon the circumstances of each individual case. The courts have legislative guidance pursuant to s. 62 of the SLRA and the enumerated factors thereunder from (a) through (s) to consider in determining what support would be adequate.
The courts, in considering what constitutes adequate and/or proper support have identified that the provision made by the deceased must not only be adequate today, but adequate in the future.
Section 63 of the Succession Law Reform Act sets out where an order for payment of support can be drawn from. The court can order payment from either income or capital of the estate, or both, and the court has broad powers to impose such conditions and restrictions as it deems appropriate with respect to such payments.
Section 72 of the Succession Law Reform Act permits a claim for support being satisfied by assets referred to in s. 72 which have regard to non-traditional assets including life insurance, a group policy of insurance, joint property with rights of survivorship and gifts Mortis Causa.
Section 72 has the effect of clawing back certain assets which are deemed by the court to be part of the estate and thus are subject to being considered in the application for support.
A Dependant's Support Claim can be commenced by issuing a Notice of Application pursuant to the Succession Law Reform Act and Rules 14.05, 74.15 and 75.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure with supporting affidavit evidence from the dependant claimant.
Section 67 of the Succession Law Reform Act provides for the freezing of the distribution of the assets of the estate until determination of the Dependant's Support Claim.
Section 61 of the Succession Law Reform Act provides that an application for dependant's support must be made within 6 months from the issuance of the Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee.
Notwithstanding the six-month limitation period, s. 61(2) of the Succession Law Reform Act also provides that the court, at its discretion, may allow an application to be made at any time with respect to any portion of the estate that remains undistributed at the date of the application. Accordingly, an application technically may be made beyond the six-month period if estate assets still exist, and with leave.
Note that an application for interim support may also be made pursuant to the provisions of s. 64 of the Succession Law Reform Act.
The 1994 Supreme Court of Canada case Tataryn v. Tataryn1 ("Tataryn"), and the 2001 Ontario Court of Appeal in Cummings v. Cummings2 ("Cummings") affirmed that moral considerations are a relevant factor for courts to consider in dependant support claims. Tataryn articulated a two-stage test which focuses first on legal duties and then second on moral duties that the deceased owed to the dependant applicant. Cummings affirmed moral considerations are a relevant factor for courts to consider in dependant support claims.
New case law, Reid v. Reid3 ("Reid") is a case where the court found all three of the applicants for support to be dependants and the court stated that actual support provided by a testator need not be direct financial support. By providing the most basic of human needs, for example "shelter", the testator provided substantial financial support to the three applicants all of their lives.
The case of Madore-Ogilvie (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ogilvie Estate4 ("Madore-Ogilvie") is a case that dealt with competing claims by the deceased's children. The Court allocated the entire estate to satisfy the dependant support claims of the children, leaving nothing for the wife.
The Perilli v. Foley Estate5 ("Perilli") Justice Henderson dealt with a claim by Perilli, the common law spouse of the deceased, for constructive trust and dependant support. The court declined to impose a constructive trust, finding that it would be sensible to combine the unjust enrichment in the Succession Law Reform Act claim into one payment to be made by the estate. The court held that the obligation to pay the unjust enrichment claim was a legal obligation of the estate, which should be considered under the Succession Law Reform Act claim. Justice Henderson found Perilli to be a dependant and in need of support. The test that Justice Henderson applied was the two-step test from Cummings, and the "Judicious Father and Husband Test".
In the Juffs v. Investors Group Financial Service Inc.6 ("Juffs"), proceeds held in a locked-in retirement account ("LIRA") owned by the deceased which had designated beneficiaries to it, were said by the court to be proceeds which included those proceeds no longer payable, but already paid out to designated beneficiaries. The Court found that there was an entitlement to make an award from the proceeds from the LIRA and did so.
Finally the Simpson v. Gualtieri Estate7 ("Simpson") concerned a support claim in circumstances where the applicant was not in need. The applicant was the common law spouse of the deceased and the estate was a very large estate. The claim was based on the Cummings argument that the deceased's moral duty to her meant that she should receive a 'fair share of his wealth'. The Court held that Cummings was distinguishable on the basis that Cummings concerned competing claims against an estate where there were insufficient assets to satisfy all of the claims. Accordingly, the Court declined to provide an interim order for support in Simpson, and any permanent support entitlement would have to be determined at trial.
1. Tataryn v. Tataryn,  2 S.C.R. 807
2. Cummings v. Cummings 2004, 69 O.R. (3d) 398 (C.A.)
3. Reid v. Reid,  O.J. 2359 (S.C.J.), Paragraph 21
4. Madore-Ogilvie (Litigation Guardian of) v. Ogilvie Estate,  O.J. 5774 (S.C.J.)
5. Perilli v. Foley Estate (20006), 23 E.T.R. (3d) 245 (S.C.J.)
6. Juffs v. Investors Group Financial Services Inc. (2005), CarswellOnt. 4384 (S.C.J.)
7. Simpson v. Gaultieri Estate (2005), CarswellOnt 4898 (S.C.J.)
2. Unjust Enrichment
The three elements necessary to establish an unjust enrichment were articulated in Rothwell v. Rothwell,8 and later the Supreme Court of Canada Case in Pettkus v. Becker9 as follows:
1. An enrichment;
2. Corresponding deprivation;
3. The absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment.
In the Pettkus v. Becker case, the Supreme Court of Canada extended the doctrine of unjust enrichment to compensate a common law spouse for efforts in the acquisition, maintenance, preservation of an asset owned by the deceased, and specifically addressed the appropriate remedy to be granted to the claimant where unjust enrichment is established. The court stated that:
"Where a monetary award is sufficient, there is no need for a constructive trust. Where a monetary award is insufficient in a family situation, this is usually related to the fact that the claimant's effort have given her a special link to the property in which case a constructive trust arises I hold the view that in order for a constructive trust to be found, in a family case as in other cases, monetary compensation must be inadequate and there must be a link between the services rendered and the property in which the trust is claimed."
There is a more recent case that of Garland v. Consumers Gas Co.10 which the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the three-part test in determining a claim for unjust enrichment and formulated a new two-part juristic reason analysis as follows:
In the first part, the plaintiff must show the absence of a juristic reason from certain established categories including:
a) the presence of a contract;
b) a disposition of law;
c) a donative intent;
d) a common law, equitable or statutory obligation to confer the benefit in question;
and, in the second part of the test, the onus shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that there is another reason to deny the plaintiffs recovery of the enrichment as follows:
a) the reasonable expectations of the parties at the time the benefit was conferred; and
b) any public policy considerations.
8. Rothwell v. Rothwell,  2 S.C.R. 436 (SCC)
9. Pettkus v. Becker,  2 S.C.R. 834
10. Garland v. Consumers Gas Co.,  S.C.J. 21 (S.C.C.)
3. Constructive Trust
The declaration of a constructive trust is the other remedy that a court can invoke to redress an unjust enrichment. That is, based on the three elements in the analysis set out in Rothwell v. Rothwell, and in Pettkus v. Becker, if the court finds that the estate has been unjustly enriched, then it has one of two remedies that can be employed. These remedies are either a monetary award (quantum meruit), or a declaration that the personal representative of the estate holds, and the deceased held, a specific property in whole or in part in trust for the plaintiff/claimant in constructive trust.
In the case of Sorochan v. Sorochan11, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that there must be a clear link between the contribution and the disputed asset before the court will grant a proprietary remedy of constructive trust.
There is some new case law including that of Bell v. Bailey12 in which the Ontario Court of Appeal discussed the fundamental approach to be taken to the award of damages as opposed to a constructive trust. In that case the Court of Appeal stated that the proprietary remedy of a constructive trust is limited to those cases where a monetary award is inadequate and once the trial judge concluded that a monetary award was adequate, the issues of constructive trust should have left the table.
Additionally, the 2006 case of Fox v. Fox,13 is one where a wife brought a claim against her husband for an interest in his inheritance on the basis that she had been involved in the litigation to recover it. The trial judge awarded the wife a constructive trust over the husband's interest in certain monies as opposed to a fixed monetary award.
The case of Dale v. Salvo,14 a wife brought proceedings for a share in property owned by her common law husband and the court used the remedy of a constructive trust as a means of scrutinizing the wife's entitlement and held that the wife's contributions were sufficient to justify imposing a constructive trust.
The case of Perilli v. Foley Estate,15 the court imposed an unjust enrichment award and declined to impose a constructive trust because of the lack of a strong causal link between the services rendered and the property owned by the deceased.
11. Sorochan v. Sorochan,  2 S.C.R. 38
12. Bell v. Bailey (2001), R.F.L. (5th) 272 (CA)
13. Fox v. Fox,  O.J. 616 (O.C.J.)
14. Dale v. Salvo,  O.J. 3111 (S.C.J.)
15. Perilli v. Foley Estate, supra
4. Quantum Meruit Claim
The classic case of an unjust enrichment leading to a quantum meruit award is the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Deglman v. Guarantee Trust Company of Canada16 which held that a nephew of the deceased was entitled to the value of the services which he performed for the deceased, and confirmed that the right to recovery did not arise from contract, but was imposed by law, as to do otherwise would have resulted in an unjust enrichment to the deceased's estate. Three specific problems often arise in quantum meruit claims against the deceased's estate:
1. Determining the manner in which the services are to be quantified;
2. Issues relating to unjust enrichment and the absence of a juristic reason for the enrichment. The relationship between the parties in determining whether the claimant reasonably expected to be reimbursed for the benefit that was provided to the estate; and
3. The requirement of corroboration that is imposed on the claimant pursuant to s. 13 of the Evidence Act.
16. Delgman v. Guarantee Trust Company of Canada,  3 D.L.R. 785 (S.C.C.)
5. Family Law Act Claims
A surviving spouse who is not satisfied with the provision made under a will may rely upon the statutory provisions in the Family Law Act and make a claim against the estate for an equalization payment from the estate. A surviving spouse can therefore elect to either:
a) Receive what was left under the Will, or on an intestacy; or
b) Rely upon s. 5 of the Family Law Act (the "FLA") to receive an equalization payment thereunder.
The equalization payment made pursuant to the FLA is one-half of the difference in the value of net family properties of the deceased spouse and the surviving spouse. The evaluation date for purposes of calculating net family property is the day before death.
The specific provision is set out in s. 5(2) of the FLA.
Pursuant to s. 6(1) of the FLA, a surviving spouse is entitled to elect to take under a will or receive his or her entitlement under s. 5 of the FLA. Subsection 6(2) provides that if the deceased died intestate, the surviving spouse may elect to receive his or her entitlement under the intestacy provisions pursuant to Part II of the SLRA, or his or her entitlement under s. 5 of the FLA.
An election is personal to the surviving spouse and this is pursuant to case law. An election may be made by the personal representative should the spouse become mentally incapacitated pursuant to case law. The election must take place within 6 months after the spouse's death pursuant to s. 6(10) of the FLA.
Pursuant to Clause 6(12) of the FLA, a spouse's entitlement to an equalization payment under s. 5 has priority over an order made against the estate under Part V of the SLRA, except an order in favour of a child of the deceased's spouse.
An FLA claim is made by way of Notice of Application. Once the election is made to receive entitlement under the FLA, the gifts to the spouse in the deceased's spouse's Will are revoked and the Will is interpreted as if the surviving spouse had died before the other. The spouse may make an election under the FLA and may simultaneously commence a Dependant's Support Claim under the SLRA.
6. Claims under the Estates Act (Creditor Claims or Monetary Claims)
Section 44. (1) Contestation of claims against estate - Where a claim or demand is made against the estate of a deceased person or where the personal representative has notice of such claim or demand, they may serve the claimant with a notice in writing that they contest the same in whole or in part, if in part, stating what part, and also referring to this section.
(2) Application for order allowing claim ‚ Within thirty days after the receipt of such notice of contestation or within three months thereafter if the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) on application so allows, the claimant may, upon filing with the registrar a statement of their claim verified by affidavit and a copy of the notice of contestation, apply to the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) for an order allowing the claim and determining the amount of it, and the judge shall hear the parties and their witnesses and shall make such order upon the application as the judge considers just, and if the claimant does not make such application, the claimant shall be deemed to have abandoned the claim and it is forever barred.
(3) Claim within jurisdiction of Small Claims Court ‚ Where the claim is within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, an application for the extension of time referred to in subsection (2) and the application for the order shall be made to the judge of a Small Claims Court in which an action for the recovery of the claim might be brought, and the application for the order shall be heard by the judge at the sittings of such court, but where the claimant and the personal representative consent, the applications may be made to the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division).
(4) Notice in such cases ‚ Not less than seven days notice of the application shall be given to the personal representative, and where the application is to be made to the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division), shall also be given to the Children's Lawyer if minors are concerned, and to such, if any, of the persons beneficially interested in the estate as the judge may direct.
(5) Right of persons interested to be heard ‚ Where the application is made to the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division), in addition to the persons to whom notice has been given, any other person who is interested in the estate has the right to be heard and to take part in the proceeding.
(6) Consent to jurisdiction of Ontario Court (General Division) in certain cases ‚ Where the claim, or the part of it that is contested, amounts to $800 or more, instead of proceeding as provided by this section, the judge shall, on the application of either party, or of any of the parties mentioned in subsection (5), direct the creditor to bring an action for the recovery or the establishment of the creditor's claim, on such terms and conditions as the judge considers just but, where the claimant and the personal representative consent to have the trial before the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division), the trial shall take place and be disposed of before the Ontario Court (General Division) judge under this section.
(7) Fees and costs when claim within Small Claims Court jurisdiction ‚ Where the claim is within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court, the fees and costs shall be according to the tariff of that court and in other cases the fees payable to the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) and to the registrar shall be the same as are allowed on an audit in an estate of a value equal to the amount of the claim or so much thereof as is contested, and the fees to be allowed to counsel or solicitors shall be fixed and determined by the Ontario Court (General Division) judge having regard to the amount involved and the importance of the contest.
(8) Claims not presently payable ‚ this section applies, even if the claim or demand is not presently payable, and that, for that reason, an action for the recovery of it could not be brought.
(9) Application for order allowing commission ‚ The judge may order the issue of a commission to take the testimony of any person or party residing out of Ontario.
(10) Judge may make an order appointing a person to take testimony, The judge may make an order for the taking of evidence before trial of any material and necessary witness residing in Ontario who is sick, aged or infirm or is about to leave Ontario and provide to whom notice of the examination is to be given.
(11) Right to issue summons ‚ A summons may be issued to enforce the attendance of witnesses to give evidence on any proceeding under this section.
(12) Rules of court apply ‚ The Rules of Civil Procedure, so far as they are applicable, apply to every application for such commission or order for examination, the issue, execution, enforcement and return thereof and the judge has power to award costs of all such procedures according to the tariff in force from time to time.
(13) Permission for enforcement of judgment ‚ Where a claim is established under this section, no procedures shall be commenced to enforce payment of the claim without the permission of the judge.
(14) Enforcement of judgment ‚ Where permission to enforce payment of a clam is given, the order shall be filed in the Ontario Court (General Division) and an execution shall issue as upon a judgment of that court and an order for payment of costs may be entered in the same way; and
Section 45. (1) Notice of contestation of unliquidated claims ‚ Where any claim or demand not within the meaning of subsection 44(1) is made against the estate of the deceased person or where the personal representative has notice or knowledge of the claim or demand, they may serve the claimant with the notice prescribed in the said section.
(2) Application by claimant for order for directions ‚ Within the time limits mentioned in subsection 44(2), the claimant may, upon filing with registrar a statement of their claim verified by affidavit and a copy of the notice of contestation, apply to the judge of the Ontario Court (General Division) for an order for directions as to the disposition of the claim or demand, and if the claimant does not make the application, the clamant shall be deemed to have abandoned the claim, and it is forever barred.
(3) Notice in such cases ‚ Not less than seven days notice of the application shall be given to the personal representative of the Children's Lawyer if minors are concerned and to such, if any, of the persons beneficially interested in the estate as the judge may direct.
(4) Powers of judges ‚ The judge shall make such order upon the application for directions as he or she considers just and, in particular but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the judge may,
(a) direct the claimant to bring an action for the recovery or establishment of their claim on such terms and conditions as the judge considers just; and
(b) where the claim or demand is not presently recoverable, prescribe the time after which the claimant shall proceed pursuant to the directions.
(5) Application of parts of s. 44 ‚ When an order is made under subsection (4), subsections 44(9), (10), (11) and (12) apply.
(6) Right of persons interested to appeal ‚ If the personal representative does not appeal from an order made under subsection (2) or (4), the Children's Lawyer or any person beneficially interested in the estate may, by leave of a judge of the Divisional Court, appeal therefrom.
(7) Right of persons interested to be heard on appeal ‚ Where the claimant or the personal representative appeals from an order made under subsection (2) or (4), the Children's Lawyer and any person beneficially interested in the estate may, by leave of the court that hears the appeal, appear and be heard.
7. Claims Against an Estate ‚ Will and Estate Challenges
In order for a will to be valid, the will document must conform to the formal requirements of execution as set out in the Succession Law Reform Act, Part I, Testate Succession, and must be a free expression of the wishes of the testator.
The usual grounds for challenging a Will are that the testator lacked testamentary capacity; the testator did not know and approve of the contents of the Will; the testator was unduly influenced, fraud, forgery and suspicious circumstances.
Suspicious circumstances are not strictly a ground, but are a combination of evidentiary markers which alert the court to problematic situations surrounding the preparation and execution of a Will.
Further cases on point:
Alexander v. Fiedler,  O.J. 5497 and  O.J. 5498 (Ont.S.C.J.)
Popke v. Bolt,  A.J. 999
Ivanic v. Ivanic,  O.J. No. 2333 (Ont. S.C.J.)
8. Solicitors Negligence
Case law involving solicitor's negligence claims would suggest that there is an ever increasing degree attributed to the duty of care owed by solicitor to the testator/client and in turn the testator/client's intended beneficiaries.
Solicitors continue to come under scrutiny in our courts when discharging their professional duties owed to their clients in their estate planning practices. The substantiating case law in Canada demonstrates a clear liability on the solicitor to the testator/client and the testator/client's intended and perhaps unintended beneficiaries.
Solicitors negligence claims often arise after death in the context of Will and Estate challenges, where it is discovered that the solicitor has not discharged his/her duty of care owed according to the standards which have developed as a result of the case law through time.
9. Constitutional Challenges
Since the Supreme Court of Canada decision in M. v. H. in 2001, a number of Ontario statutes were amended so as to provide greater equality to common-law and same sex spouses. However, there remain a number of outstanding amendments which have not been made or approved, for instance the definition of "spouse" in section 1 of the Succession Law Reform Act, as it relates to intestacy entitlements. On an intestacy, neither a common-law spouse nor a same-sex partner has any entitlement in Ontario. The intestate provisions of the Succession Law Reform Act rely on the definition of "spouse" as set out in section 1 of the Act, and not the expanded meaning as set out in Section 57 of the Act. "Spouse" is defined in Section 1 of the Act, to mean either a man or a woman who are married to each other, and therefore, only a surviving spouse who is lawfully married to the deceased, at the date of death, would be entitled on an intestacy.
The Estates Act R.S.O. 1990, in Section 29(1) however, offers a common-law spouse and a same-sex partner the same rights as a lawful spouse to seek appointment as an Estate Trustee Without a Will of the deceased's estate, yet a common-law spouse and same-sex partner do not have any entitlement to share on an intestacy pursuant to the terms of the Succession Law Reform Act. The amendment to Section 29 of the Estates Act was made in the year 2000.
In addition, Section 15 of the Succession Law Reform Act concerning a Will revoked by marriage, does not affect common-law or same-sex marriage as the word "spouse" in Section 1of the Succession Law Reform Act, only includes lawful married spouses, common-law or same-sex partners entering into a marriage which would not revoke their respective Wills.
In addition, Section 1 of the Family Law Act also fails to include common-law spouses and same-sex partners in the definition of "spouse". As a result, neither a common-law or same-sex spouse is entitled to make the election contemplated by Section 6 of the Family Law Act, as to whether he or she wishes to take under the Will or to receive the entitlement under Section 5 of the Family Law Act.
Accordingly, charter challenges continue to be made by common-law spouses and same-sex partners throughout Canada, including Ontario in relation to estate statutes which deny equal protection and benefit of the law to common-law spouses and same-sex partners.
10. Trust Disputes
Trusts disputes can involve interpretation issues, disputes amongst co-trustees, or disharmony as between the trustees and the beneficiaries of the trust.
The planning stages of trust documents are important and so too, is the necessity of a reasoned and careful choice of trustees, both under inter vivos trusts and testamentary trusts.
Proceedings in this practice area often involve the removal, replacement, and appointment of successor trustees.
Court applications, applications for interpretation and removal replacement and appointment of trustees are brought pursuant to the terms of the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990 c T. 37, and the Rules of Civil Procedure. The Trustee Act addresses the retirement of trustees, the appointment of new trustees, the removal and replacement of trustees, guidance on the vesting of trusts property, guidance on the duties and powers of trustees and the exercise of trustee discretion.
There are often disputes amongst co-trustees and perhaps the interchange with beneficiaries of the trust as to a determination of rights to trusts information.
Court applications for Advice & Directions, rectification, variation and interpretation, in this regard are often necessary and advisable both to resolve disputes and to protect fiduciaries against liability.
This overview is intended for the purposes of providing information only and is to be used only for the purposes of guidance. This information is not intended to be relied upon as the giving of legal advice and does not purport to be exhaustive. Whaley Estate Litigation Partners.Link to Practice Areas list