Wilcox v. Wilcox
The Court declined to determine the substantive questions about payment of executors' expenses from estate assets on this supplementary panel; the proper course is to separate and determine executors' accounts (distinguishing estate administration costs from personal defence costs) when the accounts are passed before a Master or Registrar, and the Court will only consider reopening the appeal if fresh grounds justifying variation are presented in written submissions.
- Citation
- 2002 BCCA 574
- Parties
- Respondent (plaintiff): Rose-Marie Wilcox; Appellant (defendant): Robert Lee Wilcox; Appellant (defendant): Roberta Lynn Marshman; Appellant (defendant): Anne-Louise Sadler; Appellant (defendant): Elsie Wilcox; Appellant (defendant): Roy Wilcox; Appellant (defendant): Estate of the late Edith Mary Wilcox also known as E. Wilcox and E.M. Wilcox
- Court
- British Columbia Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Under the Wills Variation Act / Supplementary Reasons of the Court of Appeal Regarding Executors' Costs After Judgment and Formal Order
- Outcome
- Supplementary reasons issued: Court refuses to decide the executors' costs question on this panel and directs that the issue be resolved when the executors' accounts are passed; invites written submissions if counsel contend grounds exist to reopen the appeal.
- Legal Topics
- Executor Costs, Passing of Accounts, Party Joinder, Separation of Estate and Personal Costs, Jurisdiction to Vary or Interpret Appellate Orders
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rose-Marie Wilcox
Respondent (plaintiff)
Robert Lee Wilcox
Appellant (defendant)
Roberta Lynn Marshman
Appellant (defendant)
Anne-Louise Sadler
Appellant (defendant)
Elsie Wilcox
Appellant (defendant)
Roy Wilcox
Appellant (defendant)
Estate of the late Edith Mary Wilcox also known as E. Wilcox and E.M. Wilcox
Appellant (defendant)
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Wills Variation Act / Supplementary Reasons of the Court of Appeal Regarding Executors' Costs After Judgment and Formal Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction at this stage to determine whether estate assets (the property or insurance proceeds) are liable to pay executors' expenses or legal fees
- 2 Whether executors who are also beneficiaries can charge estate assets for legal costs incurred in defending their personal interests
- 3 Whether the misnaming of the estate as a party affects entitlement to costs and the proper procedure for passing executors' accounts
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined to determine the substantive questions about payment of executors' expenses from estate assets on this supplementary panel; the proper course is to separate and determine executors' accounts (distinguishing estate administration costs from personal defence costs) when the accounts are passed before a Master or Registrar, and the Court will only consider reopening the appeal if fresh grounds justifying variation are presented in written submissions.
Court Disposition
Supplementary reasons issued: Court refuses to decide the executors' costs question on this panel and directs that the issue be resolved when the executors' accounts are passed; invites written submissions if counsel contend grounds exist to reopen the appeal.
Orders
- Counsel may provide written submissions on the question of jurisdiction and interpretation of the appellate order on a schedule to be stipulated by the Registrar of the Court of Appeal
- Issues concerning what estate assets (the property or insurance proceeds) may be applied to payment of estate expenses or legal fees are to be determined at the passing of the executors' accounts before the appropriate Registrar or Master
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment