BURST
The B.C. Court of Appeal has reversed a decision about a Metro Vancouver woman’s $5 million estate, saying the previous judge erred in his assessment of “suspicious circumstances” surrounding a second will that an executor helped prepare that “significantly benefited” the executor and her siblings.
The decision, handed down Tuesday in Vancouver, revolved around the will of Helen Bush, who died on Oct. 11, 2021, at the age of 92.
Bush had married Arthur (Chris) Bush when she was in her early 40s. When Chris died in 2018, his estate, valued at about $5 million, passed to his wife. The couple, who lived in West Vancouver, had no children.
According to the judgment, Bush had made a will in 2001 that left everything to her husband and, in the case of his death, distributed Bush’s personal belongings to her sisters, $1,000 to her church, and the rest equally among 18 nieces and nephews.
In 2017, the couple gave powers of attorney to their niece, Sandra Rodrigues, and her brother. Rodrigues is the executor of the will and the respondent in the appeal case.
In November 2018, three months after Chris’ death, Rodrigues asked the Bushes’ notary public to prepare a new will for her aunt. She sent a copy of Bush’s 2001 will and a handwritten list of changes. The list was written by Rodrigues and signed by Bush.
The new will differed significantly from the previous will, said the decision.
It removed the bequest to Bush’s sisters, added a $1,000 bequest to a close friend, and made bequests of $5,000 to each nieces and nephews, except for Rodrigues and her three siblings, who were to get the remainder of the estate.
Instead of each niece or nephew receiving roughly $275,000 under the 2001 will, the 2018 will meant 14 of them would each receive $5,000 while four would each receive nearly $1.2 million.
Two of Bush’s nieces, Irene Kroeger and Brenda Christianson, challenged the validity of the 2018 will.
In 2024, a B.C. Supreme Court judge ruled there was no “undue influence or suspicious circumstances” and that Bush had sufficient knowledge of the extent and value of her estate.
In the appeal, however, a three-judge panel found the judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence, noting Rodrigues was “instrumental” in the preparation of the will that benefited her and her three siblings to the detriment of other cousins.
The appeals court also said the judge erred in his assessment of Bush’s capacity and understanding of the new will, noting the notary public, at cross-examination in 2023, had said she did not discuss the value of the estate or the size of the remainder being left to Rodrigues and her siblings with Bush at the time of the will change.
The court ruled the 2018 will to be invalid and for the estate to be distributed using the 2001 will.
In the decision, Justice Lauri Ann Fenlon said the finding does not imply any wrongdoing.
The decision “should not be taken as confirmation that the respondent engaged in undue influence or any nefarious conduct,” she wrote. “This appeal turns on the burden of proof and the failure of the respondent to meet that burden.”