Russell Estate v. Larson

Russell Estate v. Larson

Court found Tina failed to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining Ms. Knudsen's address and thus did not comply with EAA notice requirements, but Ms. Knudsen received and reviewed probate documents on about May 2, 2011; under Desbiens the limitation period for a WVA claim ran from that effective notice and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 BCSC 135
Parties
Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim: Roy Jantzen, Executor of the Will of Tina Emma Russell; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Deanna Larson; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Brian Russell; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Karen Doyle; Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim: Susan Knudsen; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Joan MacDonald; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Donna Cowan; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Jennifer Jantzen; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Molly Spencer; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Daniel Elias; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Chester Jantzen; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Donald Jantzen; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Orville Jantzen; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Eva Cowan; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Tim Jantzen; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Karen Donald; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Eileen Partridge; Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim: Garrie Jantzen
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
4 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Wills Variation / Probate Revocation / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)
Outcome
Claims of plaintiff by counterclaim dismissed; Grant of probate of William's will not revoked
Legal Topics
Notice Requirement Under Estate Administration Act, Revocation of Grant of Probate, Wills Variation Act Limitation Period, Fiduciary Duties of Executors, Estoppel, Chain of Executorship
Source Language
english
Wills and Estates Probate Civil Procedure Limitations Notice Requirement Under Estate Administration Act Revocation of Grant of Probate Wills Variation Act Limitation Period Fiduciary Duties of Executors +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roy Jantzen, Executor of the Will of Tina Emma Russell

Plaintiff and Defendant by Counterclaim

Deanna Larson

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Brian Russell

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Karen Doyle

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Susan Knudsen

Defendant and Plaintiff by Counterclaim

Joan MacDonald

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Donna Cowan

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Jennifer Jantzen

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Molly Spencer

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Daniel Elias

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Chester Jantzen

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Donald Jantzen

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Orville Jantzen

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Eva Cowan

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Tim Jantzen

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Karen Donald

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Eileen Partridge

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Garrie Jantzen

Defendant and Defendant by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Wills Variation / Probate Revocation / Trial Judgment (reasons for Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of probate issued to Tina should be revoked for failure to provide statutory notice under the EAA
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's action under the Wills Variation Act 1996 is statute-barred by the six-month limitation period
  3. 3 Whether non-disclosure of estate assets (pension payout) postpones limitation period

Ratio Decidendi

Court found Tina failed to exercise reasonable diligence in ascertaining Ms. Knudsen's address and thus did not comply with EAA notice requirements, but Ms. Knudsen received and reviewed probate documents on about May 2, 2011; under Desbiens the limitation period for a WVA claim ran from that effective notice and she did not commence within six months. Revocation would unduly favour the claimant and prejudice others; therefore the Grant is not revoked and the WVA claim is statute-barred and dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claims of plaintiff by counterclaim dismissed; Grant of probate of William's will not revoked

Orders

  • Grant of probate not revoked; application to revoke dismissed
  • All claims by Susan Knudsen dismissed for being statute-barred under the Wills Variation Act