Chinn v. Hanrieder

Chinn v. Hanrieder

The Court held that a secret trust could not be found because Hugo had only a life interest that on his death vested in his surviving spouse and therefore he lacked the capacity to create a secret trust; however, the evidence supported a binding contract (including collateral terms established by parol evidence) whereby Ingrid agreed to assign her beneficial interest to the respondents in exchange for releases, and she breached that contract; the effective date for accounting was fixed as August 17, 1998; third party proceedings must be retried except the issue already decided on Mont's authority.

Citation
2013 BCCA 310
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Bette Chinn; Respondent (plaintiff): Dennis Hanrieder; Appellant (defendant): Ingrid Hedwig Hanrieder; Respondent (third Party): Roderick E. Mont and Allin, Anderson, Mont & Walker; Respondent (third Party): Heath and Company
Court
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (trusts/estate Dispute) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Trial judge's finding of a secret trust set aside; declaration that Ingrid holds interest for the respondents upheld on contractual grounds; accounting date fixed as August 17, 1998; limited new trial ordered on third party issues except for Mont's authority.
Legal Topics
Secret Trust, Breach of Contract, Parol Evidence Rule, Collateral Contract, Assignment of Equitable Interest, Recusal/apprehension of Bias
Source Language
English
Trusts Wills and Estates Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Equity Secret Trust Breach of Contract +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bette Chinn

Respondent (plaintiff)

Dennis Hanrieder

Respondent (plaintiff)

Ingrid Hedwig Hanrieder

Appellant (defendant)

Roderick E. Mont and Allin, Anderson, Mont & Walker

Respondent (third Party)

Heath and Company

Respondent (third Party)

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Supreme Court of British Columbia (trusts/estate Dispute) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a secret trust existed in favour of the deceased's children
  2. 2 Whether the appellant entered into and breached a contract to transfer her beneficial interest in the family trust to the respondents
  3. 3 Whether parol evidence/collateral contract principles permitted evidence beyond the written releases

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that a secret trust could not be found because Hugo had only a life interest that on his death vested in his surviving spouse and therefore he lacked the capacity to create a secret trust; however, the evidence supported a binding contract (including collateral terms established by parol evidence) whereby Ingrid agreed to assign her beneficial interest to the respondents in exchange for releases, and she breached that contract; the effective date for accounting was fixed as August 17, 1998; third party proceedings must be retried except the issue already decided on Mont's authority.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Trial judge's finding of a secret trust set aside; declaration that Ingrid holds interest for the respondents upheld on contractual grounds; accounting date fixed as August 17, 1998; limited new trial ordered on third party issues except for Mont's authority.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 6 of the trial order are upheld
  • Paragraph 2 varied to: "Ingrid Hanrieder shall account, as of August 17, 1998, for all monies received from the Family Trust, including loss of interest, and there be a reference to the Registrar, if necessary, for such accounting."