Stang v. Stang Estate, (1998) 215 A.R. 373 (QB)

• Judge: Johnstone, J.
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada)
• Case Date: February 05, 1998
• Citations: (1998), 215 A.R. 373 (QB)

Stang v. Stang Estate (1998), 215 A.R. 373 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [1998] A.R. TBEd. MR.067

IN THE MATTER OF the Estate of Alexander John Stang Late of the City of Camrose, in the Province of Alberta, Deceased;

AND IN THE MATTER OF the Family Relief Act, being Chapter F-2 of the Revised Statutes of Alberta, and amendments thereto;

Minnie Stang (applicant) v. Patricia Dekock and William Stang, Executors of the Estate of Alexander John Stang, Deceased (respondents)

(Action No. 9712 000202)

Indexed As: Stang v. Stang Estate

Alberta Court of Queen's Bench

Judicial District of Wetaskiwin

Johnstone, J.

March 13, 1998.

Summary:

Stang died and left his entire estate to his four children from a previous marriage. His widow applied for a declaration that her husband did not make adequate provision in his will for her proper maintenance and support.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application and determined the amount of the widow's proper maintenance and support.

Family Law - Topic 6602

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - Share or entitlement of wife - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the two-prong test for the deter­mination of a family relief application (legal and moral obligations) and stated that the Family Relief Act "... must be viewed as public policy legislation giving the court discretion to determine what is just in the circumstances in light of con­temporary standards. It should never focus on and be predicated solely on a needs-based formula. Rather, spouses are now entitled to an equitable share of an estate even in the absence of need." - See para­graphs 22 to 29.

Family Law - Topic 6602

Dependents' relief legislation - General principles - Share or entitlement of wife - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed the two-prong test for the deter­mination of a family relief application (legal and moral obligations) and stated that " [t]o determine whether the legal obligation is fulfilled the court must look at the length of the relationship, the contri­bution of the claimant spouse, the desir­ability of independence and the rights derived from the partnership of the marriage... the needs-based approach has been expanded so that there is symmetry between the legal obligations of the spouse during his or her lifetime and the obliga­tions upon his or her death.... The needs-based approach is only relevant in the context of... the moral obligations. It is here the court considers, in light of the moral claims to the estate, whether the spouse has a higher moral claim." - See paragraphs 30 and 31.

Family Law - Topic 6662

Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Disclaimer or contracting out - Stang died and left his entire estate to his four adult children from a previous marriage - His widow sought a declaration that her husband did not make adequate provision in his will for her proper maintenance and support - The estate (children) argued that Stang and the wife agreed that their estates would go to their respective children and neither would lay claim to the other's estate - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench rejected the argument - The Family Relief Act was predicated on a public policy principle out of which one could not contract - Therefore, such an agreement did not bind the court - See paragraph 21.

Family Law - Topic 6670

Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Property subject to distribution - [See Family Law - Topic 6673 ].

Family Law - Topic 6673

Dependents' relief legislation - Entitlement - Where adequate provision for dependent not made in will - Stang left his entire estate ($64,000) to his four adult children from a previous marriage - His widow argued that her husband did not make adequate provision in his will for her proper maintenance and support - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench reviewed Stang legal obligations pursuant to the Divorce Act and Matrimonial Property Act and held that the widow was entitled to share in the increase in the value of the deceased's assets, except an exempted portion, in light of her contribution to the 12 year marriage - The widow's moral claim was very high while those of the children were not - The court ordered that $32,000 be set aside and distributed in the form of a $16,000 capital payment and a $300 monthly allowance - See paragraphs 33 to 56.

Family Law - Topic 6682

Dependents' relief legislation - Consider­ations in making awards - Moral duty of testator - [See second Family Law - Topic 6602 ].

Family Law - Topic 6682.1

Dependents' relief legislation - Consider­ations in making awards - Legal obliga­tions of testator - [See both Family Law - Topic 6602 ].

Family Law - Topic 6695

Dependants' relief legislation - Consider­ations in making awards - Intention of testator - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the Family Relations Act "... does not remove the fundamental right of testamentary autonomy but does limit it. If what the Deceased provided, pursuant to his Will, does not constitute proper main­tenance and support then testamentary autonomy must yield to this finding. Simp­ly put, I must only interfere with the De­ceased's freedom of testation if I find that the Deceased has not met his legal and moral obligations..." - See paragraph 32.

Family Law - Topic 6704

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - Periodic payments - Widow - [See Family Law - Topic 6673 ].

Family Law - Topic 6705

Dependents' relief legislation - Awards - Lump sum payment - Widow - [See Fami­ly Law - Topic 6673 ].

Cases Noticed:

Tataryn et al. v. Tataryn Estate, [1994] 2 S.C.R. 807; 169 N.R. 60; 46 B.C.A.C. 255; 75 W.A.C. 255; [1994] 7 W.W.R. 609, refd to. [para. 22].

Siegel v. Seigel Estate et al., [1996] 3 W.W.R. 247; 177 A.R. 282 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 24].

Webb v. Webb Estate (1995), 167 A.R. 341; 28 Alta. L.R.(3d) 110 (Q.B. and Surr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 24].

Ostrander v. Kimball Estate (1996), 146 Sask.R. 64 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 25].

Moge v. Moge, [1992] 3 S.C.R. 813; 145 N.R. 1; 81 Man.R.(2d) 161; 30 W.A.C. 161; [1993] 1 W.W.R. 481; 99 D.L.R.(4th) 456; 43 R.F.L.(3d) 345, refd to. [para. 27].

Dwell v. Dwell (1982), 46 A.R. 1; 31 R.F.L.(2d) 113 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 44].

Harrower v. Harrower (1989), 97 A.R. 141; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Jackson v. Jackson (1989), 97 A.R. 153; 68 Alta. L.R.(2d) 188 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Brokopp v. Brokopp (1996), 181 A.R. 91; 116 W.A.C. 91; 19 R.F.L.(4th) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 45].

Peter v. Beblow, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 980; 150 N.R. 1; 23 B.C.A.C. 81; 39 W.A.C. 81; 101 D.L.R.(4th) 621; 77 B.C.L.R.(2d) 1; 48 E.T.R. 1; 44 R.F.L.(3d) 329; [1993] 3 W.W.R. 337, refd to. [para. 51].

Sorochan v. Sorochan, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 38; 69 N.R. 81; 74 A.R. 67; [1986] 5 W.W.R. 289; 2 R.F.L.(3d) 225; 46 Alta. L.R.(2d) 97, refd to. [para. 51].

Statutes Noticed:

Divorce Act, R.S.C. 1985 (2nd Supp.), c. 3, sect. 15(5), sect. 15(7) [para. 34].

Family Relief Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. F-2, sect. 1(d), sect. 3(1)(a) [para. 17].

Matrimonial Property Act, R.S.A. 1980, c. M-9, sect. 7(2) [para. 46]; sect. 8 [para. 48].

Counsel:

William A. Andreassen (Andreassen Olson Borth), for the applicant;

Jacqueline Schaffter (Farnham Schaffter & Ziebart), for the respondents.

This special chambers application was heard on February 5, 1998, before Johnstone, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Wetaskiwin, who delivered the following judgment on March 13, 1998.