Case Review: Markland v. Benz
Case Review: Markland v. Benz, 2024 Bcsc 2167
Overview
The decision in Markland v. Benz, 2024 examines the extent of a court-appointed committee’s authority under the Patients Property Act to sever a joint tenancy. The court emphasized the importance of respecting a donor’s documented intentions while clarifying the evidentiary requirements for altering inter vivos gifts.[1]
Case Background
Winnie Markland (the “Donor”) owned a property in Burnaby, British Columbia, and had eight grandchildren in total. In 2008, she transferred 50% interest in the property to her granddaughter, Nadine Benz (the “Granddaughter”) as a gift, creating a joint tenancy. The transfer was supported by a deed of gift in 2010 and independent legal advice, ensuring that the Granddaughter would inherit the property by right of survivorship upon the Donor’s death.[2]
Due to a stroke in 2019, the Donor was deemed incapable of managing her own affairs. Donovan Markland (the “Committee”) was adopted by the Donor in 2008, when he was 63 years old, and was subsequently appointed as her committee under the Patients Property Act. In 2021, the Committee severed the joint tenancy as per s. 15(1) and s.18 of the Patients Property Act, converting it into a tenancy in common, due to which, 50% of the property would now form part of the Donor’s estate rather than passing directly to the Granddaughter.[3]
Legal Issues
The primary issue involved whether the Committee’s decision to sever the joint tenancy fell within the powers granted under the Patients Property Act. The court considered:
- Whether the severance served the Donor’s best interests;
- Whether the severance was consistent with the Donor’s previously expressed intentions; and,
- The evidentiary burden required to justify altering a donors inter vivos arrangements.
Court Findings
The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Granddaughter, declaring the severance invalid. The court’s key findings were as follows:
- No Benefit to the Donor or Estate: The court concluded that the severance did not benefit the Donor or her estate, as required under the Patients Property Act.
“Section 18 of Patients Property Act constrains a committee’s powers as follows:
18(1) A committee must exercise the committee’s powers for the benefit of the patient and the patient’s family, having regard to the nature and value of the property of the patient and the circumstances and needs of the patient and the patient’s family.”[4]
Though the committee may not need to establish a transaction is necessary or the well being of the patient or their family, the committee is still held to a standard of a reasonable and prudent businessperson. Though the severance did not dimmish the value of the Donor’s estate, the court found no evidence to suggest that severing the joint tenancy was done for Ms. Markland’s financial benefit or that she received any financial advantage from the severance.[5]
- Respect for Documented Intentions: The court found that the 2008 gift reflected the Donor’s clear intention for the Granddaughter to inherit the assets outright. This intention was then supported by a deed of gift and independent legal advice, with no evidence indicating a desire to alter the arrangement. As the deed of gift provided the following:
“I, WINNIE MARKLAND, hereby confirm that I gave my grand daughter, NADINE DAPHNE BENZ, a joint interest in the [the Property].
The joint interest has been registered in the Land Title Office. It is my intention that this gift will pass both a legal and beneficial joint interest such that, if NADINE DAPHNE BENZ is alive at the time of my death, she will become the sole legal and beneficial owner of the Property.”[6]
- Lack of Sufficient Justification by the Committee: Although the Committee argued that the Donor wished to treat all her grandchildren equally, the court found this claim unsupported by evidence and insufficient to override the Donor’s documented wishes.
- Invalid Severance: The court invalidated the severance, confirming the Granddaughter’s right to inherit the property by survivorship.[7]
Significance
The case sheds light on the limits of committee powers under the Patients Property Act, emphasizing that committees must act in the best interests of the donor and honor their documented intentions, especially in cases involving estate planning or inter vivos gifts. It also stresses the importance of presenting strong evidence to justify any changes to a donor’s property arrangements, while underscoring the need for transparency and adherence to statutory obligations when acting on behalf of an incapable individual.
—
[1] Markland Estate v Benz, 2024 BCSC 2167.
[2] Ibid, at paras. 6 – 13.
[3]Ibid, at paras. 29 – 31.
[4] Ibid, at para 30.
[5] Ibid, at para 32.
[6] Ibid, at para 15.
[7] Ibid, at para 40.
Written by: Chhavi Monga
Posted on: December 30, 2024
Categories: Commentary, WEL Newsletter
Case Review: Markland v. Benz, 2024 Bcsc 2167
Overview
The decision in Markland v. Benz, 2024 examines the extent of a court-appointed committee’s authority under the Patients Property Act to sever a joint tenancy. The court emphasized the importance of respecting a donor’s documented intentions while clarifying the evidentiary requirements for altering inter vivos gifts.[1]
Case Background
Winnie Markland (the “Donor”) owned a property in Burnaby, British Columbia, and had eight grandchildren in total. In 2008, she transferred 50% interest in the property to her granddaughter, Nadine Benz (the “Granddaughter”) as a gift, creating a joint tenancy. The transfer was supported by a deed of gift in 2010 and independent legal advice, ensuring that the Granddaughter would inherit the property by right of survivorship upon the Donor’s death.[2]
Due to a stroke in 2019, the Donor was deemed incapable of managing her own affairs. Donovan Markland (the “Committee”) was adopted by the Donor in 2008, when he was 63 years old, and was subsequently appointed as her committee under the Patients Property Act. In 2021, the Committee severed the joint tenancy as per s. 15(1) and s.18 of the Patients Property Act, converting it into a tenancy in common, due to which, 50% of the property would now form part of the Donor’s estate rather than passing directly to the Granddaughter.[3]
Legal Issues
The primary issue involved whether the Committee’s decision to sever the joint tenancy fell within the powers granted under the Patients Property Act. The court considered:
Court Findings
The British Columbia Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Granddaughter, declaring the severance invalid. The court’s key findings were as follows:
“Section 18 of Patients Property Act constrains a committee’s powers as follows:
18(1) A committee must exercise the committee’s powers for the benefit of the patient and the patient’s family, having regard to the nature and value of the property of the patient and the circumstances and needs of the patient and the patient’s family.”[4]
Though the committee may not need to establish a transaction is necessary or the well being of the patient or their family, the committee is still held to a standard of a reasonable and prudent businessperson. Though the severance did not dimmish the value of the Donor’s estate, the court found no evidence to suggest that severing the joint tenancy was done for Ms. Markland’s financial benefit or that she received any financial advantage from the severance.[5]
“I, WINNIE MARKLAND, hereby confirm that I gave my grand daughter, NADINE DAPHNE BENZ, a joint interest in the [the Property].
The joint interest has been registered in the Land Title Office. It is my intention that this gift will pass both a legal and beneficial joint interest such that, if NADINE DAPHNE BENZ is alive at the time of my death, she will become the sole legal and beneficial owner of the Property.”[6]
Significance
The case sheds light on the limits of committee powers under the Patients Property Act, emphasizing that committees must act in the best interests of the donor and honor their documented intentions, especially in cases involving estate planning or inter vivos gifts. It also stresses the importance of presenting strong evidence to justify any changes to a donor’s property arrangements, while underscoring the need for transparency and adherence to statutory obligations when acting on behalf of an incapable individual.
—
[1] Markland Estate v Benz, 2024 BCSC 2167.
[2] Ibid, at paras. 6 – 13.
[3]Ibid, at paras. 29 – 31.
[4] Ibid, at para 30.
[5] Ibid, at para 32.
[6] Ibid, at para 15.
[7] Ibid, at para 40.
Author
View all posts