o TO DO:
List of authorities
Proof read and compare to online article
Take out headings and arrange document
Authority:
Fraudulent Conveyance Act
Fraudulent Preference Act
Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490
FACTS
The appellant Mr. Dennis Mawdsley and the settlor Ms. Joan Meshen began living together in 1988. According to the evidence, Mr. Mawdsley became the “spouse” of Ms. Meshen in accordance with the Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490, s. 1(b) as repealed by Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, s. 194 (the “WVA”). However, they did not form “an economic unit which generates financial benefits…as for marital relationships, partners should expect and are entitled to share those financial benefits.” (Moge v Moge [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at 849, 81 Man. R. (2d) 161). Ms. Meshen had three children, Shirley and Harry from her first marriage and Michael from her second marriage. Ms. Meshen was considerably wealthy, much of which she accumulated with, or received from, her late second husband, who passed away in 1983. After her husband’s passing, she took over his duties and helped run the business he had owned with his brother, Bill Meshen. Her children also worked various tasks of the business with Shirley being the most involved of the three. Ms. Meshen’s assets at the time included a home in Burnaby, a residential lot in Vancouver, a half-interest in ten acres of land in Surrey held jointly with Bill Meshen and shares in three companies. The trial judge found that Mr. Mawdsley’s “financial stature did not approach the level of [Ms. Meshen’s] affluence.” (Mawdsley v. Meshen, 2010 BCSC 1099 at para 28, [2010] B.C.J. No. 1560 (“M v M”) Ms. Meshen began meeting with estate-planning advisors in 2000 where she had various discussions about transferring her assets into a trust to benefit her children and Bill Meshen. Mr. Mawdsley was present at many of those meetings as well as Shirley Meshen and at some times Bill Meshen. The trial judge found that occasionally, Ms. Meshen would ask Mr. Mawdsley for his views about the matters under consideration (which included an inter vivos trust) and that at no time did Mr. Mawdsley indicate that he had any expectation of ownership or beneficial entitlement to the proceeds. The trial judge was satisfied that as a result of his participation in the various meetings, Mr. Mawdsley understood the nature of the inter vivos trust and understood that Ms. Meshen was considering it as an estate planning vehicle. In addition, Mr. Mawdsley was aware that Ms. Meshen “did not intend to give him any of …show more content…
Ms. Meshen’s lawyer at the time had told her that Mr. Mawdsley had a potential WVA claim; however, she dismissed the idea that her common law husband would make such claim. She went ahead and transferred her accounts into joint accounts with Shirley Meshen which totaled $138,000.00 at the time. She established an alter ego trust (the “Joan Meshen Trust”) to take effect prior to her death, into which her shares in three companies and other corporate-related assets would be rolled in. The children and their issue and Bill Meshen were the beneficiaries of the Joan Meshen Trust; Mr. Mawdsley was not. She prepared a new will and in it she bequeathed the Burnaby property to Michael Meshen and the residue of her estate to all three children. Ms. Meshen signed deeds of gifts transferring her shareholders loans to the Joan Meshen Trust and the remaining real estate to the children …show more content…
Mawdsley was a “creditor or other” given the conclusion that Ms. Meshen had not intended to defeat or hinder creditors or other when she settled most of her assets into the Joan Meshen Trust. Mr. Mawdsley relied on a claim to spousal maintenance under the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 126, as repealed by Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, s. 259 (the “FRA”). However, Mr. Mawdsley and Ms. Meshen were not married and he had no such right; nor was it open to him to apply during her lifetime under s. 66(3) for an order restraining her from carrying out the transfers to the Joan Meshen Trust. His only claim was a WVA claim, which only arose upon Ms. Meshen’s
List of authorities
Proof read and compare to online article
Take out headings and arrange document
Authority:
Fraudulent Conveyance Act
Fraudulent Preference Act
Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490
FACTS
The appellant Mr. Dennis Mawdsley and the settlor Ms. Joan Meshen began living together in 1988. According to the evidence, Mr. Mawdsley became the “spouse” of Ms. Meshen in accordance with the Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490, s. 1(b) as repealed by Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, s. 194 (the “WVA”). However, they did not form “an economic unit which generates financial benefits…as for marital relationships, partners should expect and are entitled to share those financial benefits.” (Moge v Moge [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813 at 849, 81 Man. R. (2d) 161). Ms. Meshen had three children, Shirley and Harry from her first marriage and Michael from her second marriage. Ms. Meshen was considerably wealthy, much of which she accumulated with, or received from, her late second husband, who passed away in 1983. After her husband’s passing, she took over his duties and helped run the business he had owned with his brother, Bill Meshen. Her children also worked various tasks of the business with Shirley being the most involved of the three. Ms. Meshen’s assets at the time included a home in Burnaby, a residential lot in Vancouver, a half-interest in ten acres of land in Surrey held jointly with Bill Meshen and shares in three companies. The trial judge found that Mr. Mawdsley’s “financial stature did not approach the level of [Ms. Meshen’s] affluence.” (Mawdsley v. Meshen, 2010 BCSC 1099 at para 28, [2010] B.C.J. No. 1560 (“M v M”) Ms. Meshen began meeting with estate-planning advisors in 2000 where she had various discussions about transferring her assets into a trust to benefit her children and Bill Meshen. Mr. Mawdsley was present at many of those meetings as well as Shirley Meshen and at some times Bill Meshen. The trial judge found that occasionally, Ms. Meshen would ask Mr. Mawdsley for his views about the matters under consideration (which included an inter vivos trust) and that at no time did Mr. Mawdsley indicate that he had any expectation of ownership or beneficial entitlement to the proceeds. The trial judge was satisfied that as a result of his participation in the various meetings, Mr. Mawdsley understood the nature of the inter vivos trust and understood that Ms. Meshen was considering it as an estate planning vehicle. In addition, Mr. Mawdsley was aware that Ms. Meshen “did not intend to give him any of …show more content…
Ms. Meshen’s lawyer at the time had told her that Mr. Mawdsley had a potential WVA claim; however, she dismissed the idea that her common law husband would make such claim. She went ahead and transferred her accounts into joint accounts with Shirley Meshen which totaled $138,000.00 at the time. She established an alter ego trust (the “Joan Meshen Trust”) to take effect prior to her death, into which her shares in three companies and other corporate-related assets would be rolled in. The children and their issue and Bill Meshen were the beneficiaries of the Joan Meshen Trust; Mr. Mawdsley was not. She prepared a new will and in it she bequeathed the Burnaby property to Michael Meshen and the residue of her estate to all three children. Ms. Meshen signed deeds of gifts transferring her shareholders loans to the Joan Meshen Trust and the remaining real estate to the children …show more content…
Mawdsley was a “creditor or other” given the conclusion that Ms. Meshen had not intended to defeat or hinder creditors or other when she settled most of her assets into the Joan Meshen Trust. Mr. Mawdsley relied on a claim to spousal maintenance under the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 126, as repealed by Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, s. 259 (the “FRA”). However, Mr. Mawdsley and Ms. Meshen were not married and he had no such right; nor was it open to him to apply during her lifetime under s. 66(3) for an order restraining her from carrying out the transfers to the Joan Meshen Trust. His only claim was a WVA claim, which only arose upon Ms. Meshen’s