Geffen v. Goodman Estate

Geffen v. Goodman Estate

The trial judge's factual findings that no undue influence was exercised were not displaced on appeal; the relationship between settlor and brothers could prima facie give rise to a presumption of undue influence but, given the facts and independent solicitor involvement, the presumption was rebutted; solicitor evidence was admissible to determine the settlor's intentions; trustees who reasonably defended the trust are entitled to indemnity from the trust property. Consequently the Court of Appeal's setting aside of the trial decision was reversed and the trial judgment restored.

Citation
[1991] 2 SCR 353
Parties
Appellant; Trustee: Ted M. Geffen; Appellant; Trustee: Sam E. Geffen; Appellant; Trustee: William A. Geffen; Respondent; Executor of the Estate of Tzina Burnette Goodman: Stacy Randall Goodman
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 June 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Concerning Validity of Trust and Undue Influence; Costs / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment Allowing Appeal (1991 06 27)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the trial court restored
Legal Topics
Undue Influence, Presumption of Undue Influence, Solicitor Client Privilege, Trust Validity, Trustees' Indemnity and Costs, Standard of Appellate Review
Source Language
English
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Evidence Estate Law Undue Influence Presumption of Undue Influence Solicitor Client Privilege +3 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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ted M. Geffen

Appellant; Trustee

Sam E. Geffen

Appellant; Trustee

William A. Geffen

Appellant; Trustee

Stacy Randall Goodman

Respondent; Executor of the Estate of Tzina Burnette Goodman

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Concerning Validity of Trust and Undue Influence; Costs / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada; Final Judgment Allowing Appeal (1991 06 27)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the presumption of undue influence applied to the transfer into trust
  2. 2 Whether the presumption (if triggered) was rebutted by the trustees/appellants
  3. 3 Whether solicitor-client communications were admissible despite privilege

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's factual findings that no undue influence was exercised were not displaced on appeal; the relationship between settlor and brothers could prima facie give rise to a presumption of undue influence but, given the facts and independent solicitor involvement, the presumption was rebutted; solicitor evidence was admissible to determine the settlor's intentions; trustees who reasonably defended the trust are entitled to indemnity from the trust property. Consequently the Court of Appeal's setting aside of the trial decision was reversed and the trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decision of the Alberta Court of Appeal set aside; judgment of the trial court restored

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and Court of Appeal decision set aside
  • Trial judgment restored