Keljanovic (Estate of) v. Sanseverino

Keljanovic (Estate of) v. Sanseverino

Majority held the trial judge’s findings that Keljanovic had the requisite capacity and that her execution of the transfer was not procured by undue influence were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The proponent met the onus to prove capacity; the presumption of undue influence did not apply because Handy...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
C27195
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Marjana Stefanovic, Executrix of the Estate of Katrina Kata Keljanovic; Defendant/respondent: Maria Sanseverino
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal (property and Estate Dispute) / On Appeal From Trial Judgment of Kiteley J. Dated April 9, 1997; Court of Appeal Decision Dated April 19, 2000
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); transfer upheld
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Joint Tenancy Vs Tenancy in Common, Transfer of Land, Onus of Proof
Source Language
english
Wills and Estates Property Law Civil Procedure Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Joint Tenancy Vs Tenancy in Common Transfer of Land Onus of Proof

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 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marjana Stefanovic, Executrix of the Estate of Katrina Kata Keljanovic

Plaintiff/appellant

Maria Sanseverino

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal to Court of Appeal (property and Estate Dispute) / On Appeal From Trial Judgment of Kiteley J. Dated April 9, 1997; Court of Appeal Decision Dated April 19, 2000

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the transfer converting tenancy in common to joint tenancy was valid given Katrina Keljanovic’s capacity at the time of signing
  2. 2 Whether the transfer was procured by undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of undue influence applied and who bore the onus of proof

Ratio Decidendi

Majority held the trial judge’s findings that Keljanovic had the requisite capacity and that her execution of the transfer was not procured by undue influence were reasonable and supported by the evidence. The proponent met the onus to prove capacity; the presumption of undue influence did not apply because Handy acted as a volunteer and not as an agent in a dominant-donee relationship; credible lay evidence that the deceased understood the consequences was entitled to weight; therefore the transfer was valid and the appeal dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); transfer upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent to be paid from the estate