dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1201
share rss forum feed


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
reply to coxta

Re: renouncing a succession from an estate

Well, if it's cheaper than the U.S., then I wonder why the notary quoted $800 - I guess just an ambitous guy.

Good point about nursing home and funeral home knowing the ins and outs. I will pass that on.

As far as having the estate pay the costs, there is no money in the estate.

I find this to be completely confusing:

633. If the successor aware of his heirship does not renounce within the period for deliberation, he is presumed to have accepted unless the period has been extended by the court. If a successor is unaware of his heirship, he may be constrained to exercise his option within the time determined by the court.

If a successor does not exercise his option within the time determined by the court, he is presumed to have renounced.
1991, c. 64, a. 633.

From what I read it says if you don't renounce, the you accept the the succession and then then if they don't exercise this option they have presumed to renounce.

And no, it's not Canada, it's Quebec. Laws in Quebec are extended from French law which is Napoleanic law. Canadian law is English law.

Thanks for the tips, all.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate



DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2

said by coxta:

And no, it's not Canada, it's Quebec. Laws in Quebec are extended from French law which is Napoleanic law. Canadian law is English law.

Um... last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada. It has different laws. Big deal. Canadian law is Canadian law. Parts of it are descended from English Common Law and parts of it from Scottish law, which also devolves from French law, believe it or not.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by DKS:

parts of it from Scottish law, which also devolves from French law, believe it or not.

Hah, not a lot of people know that.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2

said by Gone:

said by DKS:

parts of it from Scottish law, which also devolves from French law, believe it or not.

Hah, not a lot of people know that.

Just read any biography of any of the Scots Reformers or even better, "How the Scots Invented The World". All there.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4

Yeah, the UK has an even more elaborate hybrid system than our own.


markf

join:2008-01-24
Burlington, ON
kudos:1
Reviews:
·WIND Mobile
·ELECTRONICBOX
·Execulink Telecom
reply to hm

said by hm :

I've seen a family not wanting to claim a body before. Something about if one of the siblings claims the body then they assume the debt.

Wish I recalled how they got out of it and then finally claimed the body. Was too long ago. But it was pretty sad to see 3 kids fighting and not wanting to claim the body of their mother.

So yeah i've seen this before here, but don't recall the ins and outs of it. I think it was a funeral home who helped this family out w/ all the info.

So as far as I know, this type of thing should have been taken care of at time of death w/ help from someone at the hospital or funeral home. Surely one of them can call the gov and ask?

If you claim the body and sign for the funeral home, that falls outside of the estate and the person who signs the paper owes the funeral home that money, at least in Ontario.

Beyond that, it is cheaper to get a lawyer to do things right upfront (even at $1000), than to later find out and have to fight things at a much greater cost. I don't know how Quebec law works, but if there is nothing in the estate then the Executor is not responsible for the debts personally (unless they wasted what little there was in that kind of estate) at least in Ontario.

IamGimli

join:2004-02-28
Canada
kudos:1
reply to coxta

said by coxta:

From what I read it says if you don't renounce, the you accept the the succession and then then if they don't exercise this option they have presumed to renounce.

If you KNOW about the estate and you don't renounce properly and in time, then you are considered to have accepted the succession, including it's debts.

If you DIDN'T KNOW about the succession, a court may request you to exercise your option to renounce (for example, on demand from a creditor who wants you to pay the deceased debt) but, in that case, if you do not exercise the option you're assumed to have renounced it.

said by DKS:

Um... last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada. It has different laws. Big deal. Canadian law is Canadian law. Parts of it are descended from English Common Law and parts of it from Scottish law, which also devolves from French law, believe it or not.

Except for the fact that estate laws are not Canadian, they're provincial. Whether Québec is part of Canada or not is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

The only way someone who accepts a succession in Québec may not have to pay a deceased debts is if a notarized inventory of the estate is done and 100% of it goes to the creditors. Any remaining debt after that is null and void. If no notarized inventory of the estate is done then the succession DOES become responsible of all the deceased debts.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2

said by IamGimli:

Except for the fact that estate laws are not Canadian, they're provincial. Whether Québec is part of Canada or not is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

The comment was about law in general in Canada. We have a pastiche of laws and traditions, both Federal and Provincial.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.

telco_mtl

join:2012-01-06

said by DKS:

said by IamGimli:

Except for the fact that estate laws are not Canadian, they're provincial. Whether Québec is part of Canada or not is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

The comment was about law in general in Canada. We have a pastiche of laws and traditions, both Federal and Provincial.

but quebec civil law is a completely different animal, we have the civil code. Its one of the reasons lawyers and notaries dont have overlapping responsabilities. Lawyers cant settle and estate, notaries do. As well due to the civil code we are the only provice not recognizing common law marriages.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by telco_mtl:

we are the only provice not recognizing common law marriages.

Isn't it the other way around? What would be a common-law marriage and a legal marriage are treated the same way in Quebec? I heard something about how the majority of common-law marriages are actually in Quebec for this reason or something or other.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada
reply to telco_mtl

said by telco_mtl:

As well due to the civil code we are the only provice not recognizing common law marriages.

I refuse to beat my head against the wall further on this particular topic, other then the say that there is NO SUCH THING as common-law Marriage anywhere in Canada...

You are either married, or you are not.


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to telco_mtl

said by telco_mtl:

said by DKS:

said by IamGimli:

Except for the fact that estate laws are not Canadian, they're provincial. Whether Québec is part of Canada or not is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

The comment was about law in general in Canada. We have a pastiche of laws and traditions, both Federal and Provincial.

but quebec civil law is a completely different animal, we have the civil code. Its one of the reasons lawyers and notaries dont have overlapping responsabilities. Lawyers cant settle and estate, notaries do. As well due to the civil code we are the only provice not recognizing common law marriages.

I am well aware of that. I was born in Quebec and still have property in Quebec.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

said by DKS:

I am well aware of that. I was born in Quebec and still have property in Quebec.

Ahh, that explains it....


DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
kudos:2
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

said by telco_mtl:

As well due to the civil code we are the only provice not recognizing common law marriages.

I refuse to beat my head against the wall further on this particular topic, other then the say that there is NO SUCH THING as common-law Marriage anywhere in Canada...

You are either married, or you are not.

Exactly. The term "common law marriage" is a non sequitur.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care.


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

I refuse to beat my head against the wall further on this particular topic, other then the say that there is NO SUCH THING as common-law Marriage anywhere in Canada...
You are either married, or you are not.

"Common-law Marriage" doesn't exist. "Living Common-Law" does, though.

Most people mean later when they use the former phrase.


LazMan
Premium
join:2003-03-26
canada

said by Gone:

"Common-law Marriage" doesn't exist. "Living Common-Law" does, though.

Most people mean later when they use the former phrase.

True, but it still does not carry the rights and responsibilities that many think it does...

Anyways - way O/T - it's just a pet peeve of mine... (one of many, but that's always way O/T... )


Gone
Premium
join:2011-01-24
Fort Erie, ON
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Start Communicat..

said by LazMan:

True, but it still does not carry the rights and responsibilities that many think it does...

The rights and responsibilities come into force when children and taxes are involved, and can sometimes be the opposite where they are more than people first thought

But yeah, off topic


coxta
Ultramundane
Premium
join:2000-07-15
LALALALALALA
reply to IamGimli

said by IamGimli:

said by coxta:

From what I read it says if you don't renounce, the you accept the the succession and then then if they don't exercise this option they have presumed to renounce.

If you KNOW about the estate and you don't renounce properly and in time, then you are considered to have accepted the succession, including it's debts.

If you DIDN'T KNOW about the succession, a court may request you to exercise your option to renounce (for example, on demand from a creditor who wants you to pay the deceased debt) but, in that case, if you do not exercise the option you're assumed to have renounced it.

said by DKS:

Um... last time I checked, Quebec was still part of Canada. It has different laws. Big deal. Canadian law is Canadian law. Parts of it are descended from English Common Law and parts of it from Scottish law, which also devolves from French law, believe it or not.

Except for the fact that estate laws are not Canadian, they're provincial. Whether Québec is part of Canada or not is irrelevant for the topic at hand.

The only way someone who accepts a succession in Québec may not have to pay a deceased debts is if a notarized inventory of the estate is done and 100% of it goes to the creditors. Any remaining debt after that is null and void. If no notarized inventory of the estate is done then the succession DOES become responsible of all the deceased debts.

So if you know about the estate and you can't afford an notary to publish the renouncement , then you are responsible for the debt. Quite nice and it may be the law, but I imagine there must be a free alternative otherwise there would be a lot of problems.

Also, the person in concerned about this contacted the hospice and the assistance was they didn't know but suggested contacting legal aid.
--
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate

telco_mtl

join:2012-01-06
reply to LazMan

said by LazMan:

said by telco_mtl:

As well due to the civil code we are the only provice not recognizing common law marriages.

I refuse to beat my head against the wall further on this particular topic, other then the say that there is NO SUCH THING as common-law Marriage anywhere in Canada...

You are either married, or you are not.

the supreme court last week upheld the fact that living together under the quebec civil code does not offer any rights or responsabilites no matter how many kids or years the couple was together.


bluebaron2
Stuff Happens
Premium,Mod
join:2001-02-01
North of 44
Reviews:
·Xplornet

The topic is succession from an estate not how common law marriages are treated in Quebec. If you all want to discuss that then please start a new thread. This side discussion is not helping the OP.
--
bb2

There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want. ~Bill Watterson