Wills, Trusts & Estates

None of us likes to consider the possibility that we may one day find ourselves unable to manage our own affairs. It is a boon that we can expect to live longer, but longer life often involves a loss of independence, and the possibility of that loss of independence necessitates forward planning. It is essential to ensure that someone can take up your day to day responsibilities in the event that you lose physical or mental capacity and one of the simplest and most cost-effective tools available for these purposes is the Enduring Power of Attorney (“EPOA”).

The Bermuda statistics on aging in Bermuda should be a wake-up call to all of us that our senior citizens require greater legal protection than our laws currently offer. By 2020 there will be 30 seniors (aged 65 and over) for every 100 persons of working age (aged 15 to 64). By the same year, there will be 75 men for every 100 women. Many senior Bermudians have relied on rental income from real estate to supplement their pension income. As we know, the Contributory Pension Fund is vastly underfunded, the rental property market is soft and seniors are being “encouraged” out of the job market. At the same time, many seniors are also providing for their children and grandchildren, who themselves are feeling the financial pinch. The combination of parental generosity, coupled with an aging parent’s increasing vulnerability, can have devastating consequences.

In vitro fertilization and cryo-preservation of eggs, sperm and excess embryos, has become a routine procedure in much of the world. Bermuda does not have a sperm bank or a storage facility for embryos. Nor does Bermuda have an IVF clinic. But there are many Bermudians who travel overseas for fertility treatment and, in their excitement over the possibility of parenthood, are likely to give little thought to the nature of their interest in their own genetic material. Likewise, eggs and sperm are frequently stored by men and women undergoing chemotherapy, who may suffer sterility as a consequence of treatment.

The facts of recent UK case Marley v Rawlings (260 KB PDF) were straightforward. Mr. and Mrs. Rawlings gave instructions to their solicitor to prepare identical wills, each leaving their estate to the other, but if the other had already died, to their “adopted son, Terry Marley”. The Rawlings had two biological sons, who were effectively disinherited by these wills. Unfortunately and inadvertently, husband and wife each signed the other’s will as a consequence of the solicitor handing the wrong will to the wrong person. The mistake was discovered on the death of Mr. Rawlings, several years after the death of Mrs. Rawlings, and the Rawlings’ biological sons challenged the will.

The UK Supreme Court has recently reached a decision regarding the appeals of both Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter which refer to the nature of the Rule in Re Hastings-Bass deceased 1974. Hastings-Bass was a case that set the precedent whereby discretionary acts by trustees may be set aside if the decisions made had unintended consequences. The unintended consequences were usually unexpected tax liabilities. Historically the Rule has been used to set aside decisions made by trustees who have have accidentally failed to take into account relevant circumstances or where they have taken incorrect professional advice. As a consequence of the Rule the trustees and beneficiaries are re-set into the position they were in before entering the adverse transaction.