Angelini Estate v Angelini, 2024 BCSC 1105
In a recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Angelini Estate v Angelini[1], the Applicant brought a Motion seeking relief from the Court to exercise its discretion and enforce the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) that had been entered into with the Respondent. The Honourable Justice Caldwell was tasked to determine whether the terms of the disputed Settlement Agreement supported a finding to be enforceable.
Background
In the present case, the dispute is between two brothers regarding their respective entitlement to share in what money was, or should have been, in their mother’s estate at the time of her death.[2]
Giovanna Angelini (“Giovanna”) died intestate on October 1, 2020. Giovanna was survived by her two sons namely, Rickey Giorgio Sergio Angelini (“Rickey”) and Robin Raffaele Angelini (“Robin”).[3]
Robin held Giovanna’s Power of Attorney from approximately November 2015 onward until her death. He is the Administrator/representative of Giovanna’s Estate.[4]
Rickey survived Giovanna by just short of two months. His widow, Lori Angelini (“Lori”), is the Administrator of his Estate. Rickey and Lori have one son, Taron, who is on the autism spectrum.[5]
In July 2022, Lori, in her capacity as Administrator of Rickey’s estate, commenced this action against Robin personally, and in his capacity as representative of Giovanna’s estate. She alleged various misfeasance involving the use of the Power of Attorney and the administration of Giovanna’s estate to the prejudice of Rickey and his estate.[6]
Settlement negotiations between the parties commenced after discovery examinations.
On August 8, 2023, the negotiations started with a letter, sent by e-mail, with an initial offer for a sale of Robin’s home, payment of $200,000 in trust for Taron, with Lori to be the trustee of such money and for a mortgage to be put in place to secure such payment.
On September 13, 2023, the offer was rejected and countered in correspondence from Lori’s counsel. The counteroffer raised the payment to $300,000 payable in two installments, included a second mortgage of $250,000 being the amount of the second installment, provided an interest-free period and a subsequent interest rate of 10% after January 15, 2024, required releases and provided for each party to bear their own costs.[7]
On September 29, 2023, a final counter-offer letter delivered by e-mail from counsel for Lori was presented that a $300,000 payment from the sale proceeds of the Robin’s home, grant a secured second mortgage in favor of Lori in the amount of $300,00 at 4% interest per annum, and included mutual releases of all claims.[8]
After a series of letter correspondences delivered by e-mail through counsels, they agreed to the settlement terms.
On October 10, 2023, Robin’s counsel wrote a letter correspondence sent by e-mail informing that his client was not prepared to proceed with the matter as they have discussed therefore, he withdrew as counsel.[9]
Counsel for Lori prepared the form of Agreement in precisely the same terms as were contained in the September 29, 2023, letter, along with a simple form of mutual release as contemplated by term 7 of that letter.[10]
Robin takes the position that there was no binding agreement, as the terms of the mortgage and release had not been finalized and thus the parties had no more than an agreement to agree.[11]
The Law
The Court reviewed Hutton v. Hutton, 2020 BCSC 2046, to determine whether the settlement agreement was enforceable. At para. 30, the Court concluded that it could properly enforce a settlement agreement and grant a stay of proceedings through such motion if they were to find that there was a binding settlement agreement.[12]
The Court had absolutely no hesitation in finding that an objective bystander would see the payment of $300,000 from the sale of Robin’s house, to settle the dispute, as being the essential term of the agreement.[13]
The Court rejected Robin’s argument that details regarding the mortgage and release, having not been finalized, negate the presence of a settlement agreement. Referring again to the decision in Hutton at paras. 64 and 65, the learned judge references a similar situation as it arose in the case of Fieguth v. Acklands Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 2744 (BC CA), 59 D.L.R. (4th) 114 (B.C.C.A.).[14]
In addition, the Court emphasized the objective of the Supreme Court Civil Rule 1-3 which is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.[15]
Concluding Comments
The Court found that there is a Settlement Agreement between the parties in the terms provided in the letter of September 29, 2023, and accepted by letter and e-mail confirmation by Robin’s counsel on October 4, 2023.[16]
This case provides a recent authority when courts will find that a settlement agreement has been entered into and is enforceable.
Settlement agreements are a very useful tool to resolve existing disputes before parties engage in court proceedings or even during litigation to reduce cost, especially in Estates Litigation. As a key takeaway counsels and parties are to keep in mind that settlement agreements are legally binding contracts that are enforceable by a court.
—
[1] Angelini Estate v Angelini, 2024 BCSC 1105
[2] Ibid para 22
[3] Ibid para 2
[4] Ibid para 3
[5] Ibid para 4
[6] Ibid para 5
[7] Ibid para 10
[8] Ibid para 12
[9] Ibid para 16
[10]Ibid para 17
[11] Ibid para 18
[12] Ibid para 19
[13] Ibid para 24
[14] Ibid para 26
[15] Ibid para 28
[16] Ibid para 29
Menu
Written by: Fabiana Araujo M. S. Kennedy
Posted on: July 25, 2024
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
Angelini Estate v Angelini, 2024 BCSC 1105
In a recent decision from the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Angelini Estate v Angelini[1], the Applicant brought a Motion seeking relief from the Court to exercise its discretion and enforce the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) that had been entered into with the Respondent. The Honourable Justice Caldwell was tasked to determine whether the terms of the disputed Settlement Agreement supported a finding to be enforceable.
Background
In the present case, the dispute is between two brothers regarding their respective entitlement to share in what money was, or should have been, in their mother’s estate at the time of her death.[2]
Giovanna Angelini (“Giovanna”) died intestate on October 1, 2020. Giovanna was survived by her two sons namely, Rickey Giorgio Sergio Angelini (“Rickey”) and Robin Raffaele Angelini (“Robin”).[3]
Robin held Giovanna’s Power of Attorney from approximately November 2015 onward until her death. He is the Administrator/representative of Giovanna’s Estate.[4]
Rickey survived Giovanna by just short of two months. His widow, Lori Angelini (“Lori”), is the Administrator of his Estate. Rickey and Lori have one son, Taron, who is on the autism spectrum.[5]
In July 2022, Lori, in her capacity as Administrator of Rickey’s estate, commenced this action against Robin personally, and in his capacity as representative of Giovanna’s estate. She alleged various misfeasance involving the use of the Power of Attorney and the administration of Giovanna’s estate to the prejudice of Rickey and his estate.[6]
Settlement negotiations between the parties commenced after discovery examinations.
On August 8, 2023, the negotiations started with a letter, sent by e-mail, with an initial offer for a sale of Robin’s home, payment of $200,000 in trust for Taron, with Lori to be the trustee of such money and for a mortgage to be put in place to secure such payment.
On September 13, 2023, the offer was rejected and countered in correspondence from Lori’s counsel. The counteroffer raised the payment to $300,000 payable in two installments, included a second mortgage of $250,000 being the amount of the second installment, provided an interest-free period and a subsequent interest rate of 10% after January 15, 2024, required releases and provided for each party to bear their own costs.[7]
On September 29, 2023, a final counter-offer letter delivered by e-mail from counsel for Lori was presented that a $300,000 payment from the sale proceeds of the Robin’s home, grant a secured second mortgage in favor of Lori in the amount of $300,00 at 4% interest per annum, and included mutual releases of all claims.[8]
After a series of letter correspondences delivered by e-mail through counsels, they agreed to the settlement terms.
On October 10, 2023, Robin’s counsel wrote a letter correspondence sent by e-mail informing that his client was not prepared to proceed with the matter as they have discussed therefore, he withdrew as counsel.[9]
Counsel for Lori prepared the form of Agreement in precisely the same terms as were contained in the September 29, 2023, letter, along with a simple form of mutual release as contemplated by term 7 of that letter.[10]
Robin takes the position that there was no binding agreement, as the terms of the mortgage and release had not been finalized and thus the parties had no more than an agreement to agree.[11]
The Law
The Court reviewed Hutton v. Hutton, 2020 BCSC 2046, to determine whether the settlement agreement was enforceable. At para. 30, the Court concluded that it could properly enforce a settlement agreement and grant a stay of proceedings through such motion if they were to find that there was a binding settlement agreement.[12]
The Court had absolutely no hesitation in finding that an objective bystander would see the payment of $300,000 from the sale of Robin’s house, to settle the dispute, as being the essential term of the agreement.[13]
The Court rejected Robin’s argument that details regarding the mortgage and release, having not been finalized, negate the presence of a settlement agreement. Referring again to the decision in Hutton at paras. 64 and 65, the learned judge references a similar situation as it arose in the case of Fieguth v. Acklands Ltd. (1989), 1989 CanLII 2744 (BC CA), 59 D.L.R. (4th) 114 (B.C.C.A.).[14]
In addition, the Court emphasized the objective of the Supreme Court Civil Rule 1-3 which is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits.[15]
Concluding Comments
The Court found that there is a Settlement Agreement between the parties in the terms provided in the letter of September 29, 2023, and accepted by letter and e-mail confirmation by Robin’s counsel on October 4, 2023.[16]
This case provides a recent authority when courts will find that a settlement agreement has been entered into and is enforceable.
Settlement agreements are a very useful tool to resolve existing disputes before parties engage in court proceedings or even during litigation to reduce cost, especially in Estates Litigation. As a key takeaway counsels and parties are to keep in mind that settlement agreements are legally binding contracts that are enforceable by a court.
—
[1] Angelini Estate v Angelini, 2024 BCSC 1105
[2] Ibid para 22
[3] Ibid para 2
[4] Ibid para 3
[5] Ibid para 4
[6] Ibid para 5
[7] Ibid para 10
[8] Ibid para 12
[9] Ibid para 16
[10]Ibid para 17
[11] Ibid para 18
[12] Ibid para 19
[13] Ibid para 24
[14] Ibid para 26
[15] Ibid para 28
[16] Ibid para 29
Author
View all posts