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 Meshen in accordance with the Wills Variation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 490, s. 1(b) as repealed by Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13, s. 194 (the “WVA”).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.” …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 Mawdsley relied on a claim to spousal maintenance under the Family Relations Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 126, as repealed by Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25, s. 259 (the “FRA”).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.” …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