What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Judge rejects man's 'racist will' (1 Viewer)

Should a testator's wishes of how his or her property is to be divided be found invalid if they

  • Yes, public policy should trump.

    Votes: 7 12.5%
  • No, the testator's distribution wishes should be honored.

    Votes: 49 87.5%

  • Total voters
    56

Gary Coal Man

Footballguy
The below case is a current illustration of invildating a will which is against public policy. I'm not asking about the specifics of this particular case. Instead I'm asking whether you agree in general that a testator's wishes of how his or her property is to be divided should be found invalid if they contravene public policy, but do not require the beneficiary to do anything illegal.

Estate Law Canada Blog

Judge rejects Ontario man's 'racist will' that disinherited daughter for having '******* white son'


Thursday, January 29, 2015

The Ontario court has made a new, interesting ruling. It concerns the will of Rector Emanuel Spence, who died in 2012. Mr. Spence had two daughters. He had an excellent relationship with his daughter, Verolin, but ended that relationship in anger and bitterness when his daughter revealed in 2002 that she was pregnant, and that the child's father was Caucasian.

Mr. Spence, who was Jamaican-born, called the child a "white *******" and swore he would not have a white man's child in his home. He cut Verolin out of his will and left everything to his other daughter, from whom he was more or less estranged.

After Mr. Spence's death, Verolin challenged the will on the ground that it violated public policy. The challenge was successful; the judge determined that the will was based on a racist principle and divided the estate equally between the two daughters. To read a more detailed version of this story, click here to see an article in the National Post. The full name of the case is Spence v. BMO Trust Company, 2015 ONSC 615.

All wills written in Canada are subject to legal rules that are collectively called "public policy". Though most people have never heard of these rules, and in fact are often surprised to find that they can't say whatever they want in their wills, the rules affect all of us. The public policy rules are in place to ensure that wills (or parts of them) are not valid if they are contrary to the good of the public. Wills cannot give or withhold inheritances based on concepts that are held to be contrary to Canadian values.

For example, a parent cannot give a child an inheritance on the condition that the child never marry, as it is contrary to public policy to prevent people from marrying. Another case in which the Ontario court considered public policy involved a trustee who refused to fund a beneficiary's inheritance because the beneficiary was involved with someone of a different religion (Fox v. Fox Estate, 1996 CanLII 779). In a case from British Columbia, parents wished to disinherit a child because he was homosexual (Patterson v. Lauritsen (1984 CanLII 353). In Saskatchewan, the estate of Robert McCorkell was challenged on the basis that he wanted to leave a huge sum of money to an organization that promoted hate against certain groups of people.

Another interesting aspect of the Spence case is that the will itself doesn't say anything racist. It says that Verolin was cut out of the will because of the lack of communication between Verolin and her father. All of the facts about the dispute between father and daughter - and the racist reasons for it - were provided by people other than the testator.

If you are planning to leave someone out of your will because you don't approve of their lifestyle, perhaps it would be a good idea to discuss your plans with an experienced wills and estates lawyer.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
If a will does not require the breaking of any laws, or does not include clouding title against public policy a person ought to be able to do in death, as their last act in life, what they could have done in life.

 
The dead dad is a real tool, but the laws are here to protect tools as well as regular people. He wants to cut a kid out because she chews gum, so be it.

I work in a bank and people change their benef on accts all the time for stupid reasons.

It happens.

 
When I read the title, I figured it was a white dude's will, and I had little problem with the judge doing that. After I read the article, and it was the flip side, I still had little problem with what the judge did. The guy is dead. I have little use for haters while they are on earth, and even less when they are dead.

 
It's the mans property to do what he wishes. No reason to overturn this.

For the record, the child is a white *******. Just sayin.

 
When I read the title, I figured it was a white dude's will, and I had little problem with the judge doing that. After I read the article, and it was the flip side, I still had little problem with what the judge did. The guy is dead. I have little use for haters while they are on earth, and even less when they are dead.
All haters?

What if a testator chooses to divide his possessions equally among his siblings, but he intentionally excludes one sibling because he hates him?

 
When I read the title, I figured it was a white dude's will, and I had little problem with the judge doing that. After I read the article, and it was the flip side, I still had little problem with what the judge did. The guy is dead. I have little use for haters while they are on earth, and even less when they are dead.
Are you a conservative?

Would think the argument would simply be this guy made his money and he should be able to do what he chooses with it. :shrug:

 
Question: let's say a guy has 1,000,000. He wills 950,000 to one child and 50,000 to the other. No reason given.

The larger beneficiary feels that it's unfair and wants, of their own volition, to give 450,000 of their inheritance to the other beneficiary to make it even. Does that person have the right to refuse part of their inheritance and grant that part to the other one?

 
Question: let's say a guy has 1,000,000. He wills 950,000 to one child and 50,000 to the other. No reason given.

The larger beneficiary feels that it's unfair and wants, of their own volition, to give 450,000 of their inheritance to the other beneficiary to make it even. Does that person have the right to refuse part of their inheritance and grant that part to the other one?
Yes, in LA this is called renunciation and accretion.

 
If a will does not require the breaking of any laws, or does not include clouding title against public policy a person ought to be able to do in death, as their last act in life, what they could have done in life.
:thumbup: That's my general take on the issue, too.
Agreed...If this man could give all his money to one daughter because she didn't have a ******* white child, while alive...without breaking any laws...then he should be able to in death.

What about donations to specific groups?

If a black man gives his inheritance to a black college specifically because it's a black college and not white...could Canada rule it was racist and then reverse it?

And especially since the will doesn't state the reasoning behind the will...wow...can't believe that can stand.

But it is foul as hell...racist *******.

 
Question: let's say a guy has 1,000,000. He wills 950,000 to one child and 50,000 to the other. No reason given.

The larger beneficiary feels that it's unfair and wants, of their own volition, to give 450,000 of their inheritance to the other beneficiary to make it even. Does that person have the right to refuse part of their inheritance and grant that part to the other one?
As a practical matter, they could also just give 450k to the other sibling without renouncing anything.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
If a will does not require the breaking of any laws, or does not include clouding title against public policy a person ought to be able to do in death, as their last act in life, what they could have done in life.
Counterpoint: Anything a person wishes to do with his stuff that society finds distasteful should be done while he is alive because society just might not guaranty the distasteful outcome after he dies.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on the facts given, I voted yes. I would qualify that by saying that the facts need to be well proven however. Such a thing should not be done easily or lightly.

 
njherdfan said:
mr roboto said:
Question: let's say a guy has 1,000,000. He wills 950,000 to one child and 50,000 to the other. No reason given.

The larger beneficiary feels that it's unfair and wants, of their own volition, to give 450,000 of their inheritance to the other beneficiary to make it even. Does that person have the right to refuse part of their inheritance and grant that part to the other one?
As a practical matter, they could also just give 450k to the other sibling without renouncing anything.
Probably not a smart move tax-wise.

 
Zow said:
jon_mx said:
When I read the title, I figured it was a white dude's will, and I had little problem with the judge doing that. After I read the article, and it was the flip side, I still had little problem with what the judge did. The guy is dead. I have little use for haters while they are on earth, and even less when they are dead.
Are you a conservative?Would think the argument would simply be this guy made his money and he should be able to do what he chooses with it. :shrug:
He's a compassionate conservative

 
Wills cannot give or withhold inheritances based on concepts that are held to be contrary to Canadian values.
Don't put it in your will. If you are dumb enough to do so then I support the court not following through with it.

 
Wills cannot give or withhold inheritances based on concepts that are held to be contrary to Canadian values.
Don't put it in your will. If you are dumb enough to do so then I support the court not following through with it.
He didn't put it in the will.

Family members were able to testify to his intentions and the judge ruled thusly.

 
Wills cannot give or withhold inheritances based on concepts that are held to be contrary to Canadian values.
Don't put it in your will. If you are dumb enough to do so then I support the court not following through with it.
He didn't put it in the will.

Family members were able to testify to his intentions and the judge ruled thusly.
Right, I didn't read the article until now.I think the important part is that the other sister didn't fight it.

What makes this week’s ruling even more extraordinary is that Mr. Spence didn’t explicitly disinherit his daughter on racial grounds in his will; he merely said he chose not to leave her his estate because the two had stopped communicating, which was objectively true.

Verolin Spence’s lawyer, Michael Deverett, won the case by bringing in a family friend to testify to Mr. Spence’s ulterior motives.

The judge’s ruling describes a lonely man prone to fits of anger and abusive behaviour so intense that aid agencies stopped sending people to help him with his needs. He died of a stroke in 2013. Neither daughter attended his funeral.

Donna still lives in the U.K. and has made no appearances in relation to the proceedings.

Because Donna Spence has so far been unwilling to participate in the proceedings, it’s unlikely the ruling will ever be challenged.
 
I'm going to see my lawyer next week to change my will to one long string of ethnic and religious slurs. I'll throw in something for the ladies well.

 
Zow said:
jon_mx said:
When I read the title, I figured it was a white dude's will, and I had little problem with the judge doing that. After I read the article, and it was the flip side, I still had little problem with what the judge did. The guy is dead. I have little use for haters while they are on earth, and even less when they are dead.
Are you a conservative?Would think the argument would simply be this guy made his money and he should be able to do what he chooses with it. :shrug:
He's a compassionate conservative
Do dead people have rights? They can be racist pigs while alive, but no reason to put up with their crap when they are dead. These are kind of like racist deed restrictions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ditkaless Wonders said:
If a will does not require the breaking of any laws, or does not include clouding title against public policy a person ought to be able to do in death, as their last act in life, what they could have done in life.
Counterpoint: Anything a person wishes to do with his stuff that society finds distasteful should be done while he is alive because society just might not guaranty the distasteful outcome after he dies.
Hey! Take this to the lawyer thread and leave us peons to be outraged.
 
In Denmark half of your inheritance is earmarked to your wife and children (IIRC in equal parts). The other half you can do with what you want, as long as you do not give it to an organization that is illegal (such as one convicted of supporting terror or such).

 
In Denmark half of your inheritance is earmarked to your wife and children (IIRC in equal parts). The other half you can do with what you want, as long as you do not give it to an organization that is illegal (such as one convicted of supporting terror or such).
That's fascinating that it's required like that. What if a dude has a kid outside the marriage that bo one knows about but comes forward once he dies?

 
In Denmark half of your inheritance is earmarked to your wife and children (IIRC in equal parts). The other half you can do with what you want, as long as you do not give it to an organization that is illegal (such as one convicted of supporting terror or such).
That's fascinating that it's required like that.What if a dude has a kid outside the marriage that bo one knows about but comes forward once he dies?
In Illinois it's called renunciation. A spouse left out of a will can force a 1/2 distribution if there are no children or a 1/3 distribution if there are children.

A pretermitted heir can demand a share of the estate.

 
I bequeathed a 24 hour pass to the varsity locker room in my senior will. Would this still be allowed?

 
In Denmark half of your inheritance is earmarked to your wife and children (IIRC in equal parts). The other half you can do with what you want, as long as you do not give it to an organization that is illegal (such as one convicted of supporting terror or such).
That's fascinating that it's required like that.What if a dude has a kid outside the marriage that bo one knows about but comes forward once he dies?
gets a share

 
He's an ####### in life. I suppose he has the right to be in death, too.

This may be a clear case of obvious "transgression" but the old slippery slope looms large here.

 
He's an ####### in life. I suppose he has the right to be in death, too.

This may be a clear case of obvious "transgression" but the old slippery slope looms large here.
Canada has already slid down that slippery slope.

 
Gary Coal Man said:
jon_mx said:
When I read the title, I figured it was a white dude's will, and I had little problem with the judge doing that. After I read the article, and it was the flip side, I still had little problem with what the judge did. The guy is dead. I have little use for haters while they are on earth, and even less when they are dead.
All haters?

What if a testator chooses to divide his possessions equally among his siblings, but he intentionally excludes one sibling because he hates him?
Jon, you never clarified which reasons to hate should be permissible to disinherit and which reasons to hate should not be allowed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love how people are just assuming this type of thing happens in Canada but not the US.
In fairness, Canada is much worse than the US when it comes to free speech and freedom of thought issues. I know wills get invalidated in the US too, but I doubt its a coincidence that this particular story happens to emanate from Canada.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top