Category: Brandon Blog Post

Welcome to our weekly blog on financial matters focusing on debt, debt reduction and alternatives to bankruptcy. Our blog is written by our Senior-Vice President, Brandon Smith, who is a licensed trustee in bankruptcy, hence the title, Brandon’s blog.

Brandon writes on topics of interest for individuals and businesses. We hope that you enjoy Brandon’s blog, visit every week to see the new Brandon’s Blog and spend time on our website learning from the information we provide about bankruptcy, debt consolidation, debt settlement, consumer proposals, restructuring and receivership. We also hope you will spend some time on our website – www.irasmithinc.com, finding out more about our Firm and people.

At Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc., we want to help people for Starting Over, Starting Now, living a debt free life.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

LICENSED INSOLVENCY TRUSTEE RECEIVER APPOINTED BY COURT ERRORS TO AVOID

Licensed insolvency trustee: Introduction

I want to chat with you today about the independence of the licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or trustee) (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) acting as a court-appointed receiver. I have seen many times when a secured creditor needs to resort to a court appointment, and not privately appoint the receiver, yet feel they still can control every aspect of the court-appointed receiver’s actions and conduct.

The decision of the Court of Appeal of Alberta released on February 4, 2019, in Jaycap Financial Ltd v Snowdon Block Inc, 2019 ABCA 47 (Jaycap), highlights the issue.

Licensed insolvency trustee: Back to basics

To better understand the Jaycap decision, I want to talk about a few basic points. In a private receivership, the receiver’s primary duties are to act:

  1. On behalf of and have a duty of care primarily to the secured creditor who appointed the receiver.
  2. In a commercially reasonable way.
  3. Lawfully.

In a court appointment, the court-appointed receiver:

  1. Acts on behalf of the Court as a Court officer.
  2. Be and be seen to be independent of all stakeholders.
  3. Owes a duty of care to all stakeholders.
  4. Must act in a commercially reasonable and lawful way.

Various practices have evolved over time to indicate the independence of the court-appointed receiver. They aren’t necessarily rules or laws. However, they are indicators that the Court looks to in determining if its court-appointed receiver is seen to be independent and is actually independent of specific stakeholders, normally, secured creditors.

Examples of these indicators are:

  1. The court-appointed receiver has its own legal counsel and does not rely upon legal counsel for one of the secured creditors.
  2. The court’s receiver has obtained sufficient independent appraisals of the assets and has not taken the word of or earlier appraisals commissioned by a secured creditor.
  3. A sales process being recommended by the court-appointed receiver is fair to all parties and does not favour one or more stakeholders over others.
  4. The analysis performed by a court-appointed receiver in making its recommendations to the court is seen to be free from undue influence.
  5. The court-appointed receiver has not shared its appraisal or other information which could influence the outcome of the receivership administration with any of the stakeholders.
  6. The court-appointed receiver has not treated some stakeholders differently than others.
  7. Any information shared by the court-appointed receiver or meetings held to share information has been done with all secured creditors, not just a senior secured creditor or the secured creditor who made the court application to appoint the receiver.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Jaycap situation

The receiver was appointed by the court as receiver and manager of Snowdon Block Inc. (Snowdon) in February 2016. The only material possession of Snowdon was land and building in Calgary. In July 2016 the receiver started a sales procedure to ask for deals for the property. In October 2016 the Receiver ultimately received 2 offers for the real estate. The receiver accepted a conditional offer from a third party.

After months of extensions, the potential buyer was incapable to remove its conditions and the sale did not continue.

Jaycap was the primary lender of Snowdon and was funding the
receivership. Jaycap became interested in capping the increasing costs and safeguarding its financial investment. The receiver advised Jaycap that a credit bid would be a possible option to get title to the real estate and bring the receivership to an end.

On July 5, 2017, Jaycap emailed the Receiver that it would credit bid its “current costs” as a specific amount. Jaycap scheduled a numbered company it managed to be the buyer. For simplicity, I will refer to Jaycap’s nominee company as the buyer.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The first Jaycap credit bid

An agreement of purchase and sale (APS) was prepared and entered into by Jaycap and the Receiver on August 2, 2017. The total debt was defined to be the amount included in the July 5, 2017 e-mail and that amount was likewise the acquisition cost.

On August 21, 2017, the Receiver obtained the approval and vesting order authorizing the APS. The guarantors of the Jaycap debt did not oppose this application as there would be no shortfall that they would be responsible for.

It is somewhat unclear as to the reasons for what happened next. The receiver states in its 3rd report that on August 28, 2017, legal counsel for Jaycap indicated that there was an error in the purchase price. The report after that states that the receiver’s legal counsel advised it that a common mistake occurred about the purchase price as set out in the APS. They further advised that court authorization was needed to fix this mistake.

The transaction subject to the APS was not completed at the end of August 2017.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The second Jaycap credit bid

On September 6, 2017, the receiver and Jaycap entered into a new agreement (the 2nd APS), which decreased the purchase price. On September 8, 2017, the receiver filed an application to abandon the first approval and vesting order and sought approval of the 2nd APS.

The guarantors were served with the new application. One of the guarantors, a Mr. Richardson, sent out a series of letters to the receiver’s legal counsel asking for information as well as papers to support that a mistake had actually occurred. The receiver’s lawyer answered some, however not all, of these demands.

The application was to be heard on September 19, 2017. It was adjourned to October 26, 2017. The chambers judge reserved to think about the submissions and to evaluate Mr. Richardson’s materials which had not made it into the court documents prior to the hearing.

She released her decision a week later approving the 2nd APS and providing the necessary vesting order. She discovered that she was not prevented from abandoning the first order and providing another.

The chambers judge considered the merits of the 2nd APS and whether it fulfilled the requirements established in Royal Bank of Canada v Soundair Corp (Soundair). She was satisfied the 2nd APS was sensible in the circumstances, whether the receiver had made sufficient efforts to get the best price and was not acting improvidently. She kept in mind the lack of offers, the lack of ability to complete an earlier conditional deal, the earlier order approving the sale, and the changed acquisition price, which was still higher than the property’s appraised value.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The guarantor’s appeal

Under the 1st APS, there was no shortfall and the guarantors had no liability. Under the 2nd APS, there was a shortfall in excess of $1 million that the guarantors would be responsible for.

The guarantors appealed the approval of the 2nd APS specifying that the court erred in finding there was a mutual mistake. Further, given the lack of information provided to Mr. Richardson to his reasonable request for information, the guarantors say that the receiver’s conduct casts doubt on the honesty of the process. They say that the Receiver did not discharge its independent obligation and was following guidelines and instructions from Jaycap, that had a change of mind about the transaction and wanted to decrease the price.

Their position was that the 2nd approval and vesting order needs to be vacated, the 1st APS ought to be reinstated, and the guarantors should be alleviated of their responsibility under the guarantee.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Appeal Court’s analysis

The Court of Appeal of Alberta agreed with the guarantors that the evidence did not support a mutual mistake was made. They found that it was a mistake for the chambers court to conclude that the test was satisfied.

While the guarantors were successful on this ground, this does not finish the matter. The appeal cannot be successful unless the guarantors establish a reviewable error in the chambers court’s Soundair evaluation.

The guarantors raised two concerns sustaining their allegation that the integrity of the process was jeopardized. First, the receiver fell short in not disclosing all relevant records about what transpired after August 2, 2017. Second, the receiver did not seem to be acting independently of Jaycap.

The Appeal Court agreed that the receiver’s proof about what transpired after August 2, 2017, was not sufficient, also taking into consideration the evidence from the confidential supplement to the third report. The receiver’s lawyer’s conclusion that there was a mutual mistake was inappropriate. That was for the court to decide.

As far as the conduct of the receiver, the Appeal Court had this to say. While insolvency proceedings undergo special procedural rules and are not surprisingly time delicate in nature, these considerations do not relieve the receiver from its basic responsibilities to the stakeholders and the court. Also, it does not excuse the Receiver from supplying proof to fulfill its requirement to provide sufficient evidence to the requisite standard for each application that it brings.

The Appeal Court went on to say that:

  1. A court-appointed receiver is an officer of the Court appointed to
    discharge certain duties listed in the appointment order.
  2. When a court-appointed receiver is appointed, the receiver-manager is given exclusive control over the assets of the company and in this regard, the board of directors is displaced.
  3. The significance of a receiver’s power is to clear up liabilities and sell off assets.
  4. It is well developed that a court-appointed receiver owes a duty of care not just to the Court, but likewise to all parties who may have an interest in the debtor’s assets. This includes competing secured creditors, guarantors, unsecured creditors, contingent creditors, and shareholders.
  5. A receiver has the duty to work out such reasonable treatment, supervision, and control of the debtor’s property as a regular person would give to his or her very own.
  6. A receiver’s duty is to perform the receiver’s powers truthfully and in good faith.
  7. A receiver’s responsibility is that of a fiduciary to all interested stakeholders involved with the borrower’s assets, properties.

The Appeal Court was harsh in its criticism of both the receiver and Jaycap. The court found that the absence of details about what occurred and the method the receiver and Jaycap used to skirt around the issues in its application materials definitely did not assist in showing the receiver’s independence.

The optics of the circumstances most likely added to the guarantors’ uncertainty that what had taken place warranted even more inquiries and that the Receiver was following Jaycap’s instructions to hide from the guarantors the real state of affairs.

Jaycap and the receiver were jointly represented by the same legal counsel before the Alberta Court of Appeal, which was unhelpful and was in the court’s view, highly unusual. Jaycap could not address questions the Receiver would be anticipated to know. Throughout the hearing, the panel discovered that the guarantors’ arguments were convincing.

Licensed insolvency trustee: The Appeal Court’s decision

What was missing was transparency. The process should be transparent. It should enable the court and interested parties to make an informed decision as to whether the sale can be considered fair and reasonable in the circumstances. Given the significant questions left unanswered by the Receiver, the Appeal Court had serious concerns about the efficacy, fairness, and integrity of the process the Receiver followed between August 2, 2017, and the hearing of the application to approve the 2nd APS. As a result, the Alberta Court of Appeal disagreed with the chambers judge that the Receiver met the requirements of Soundair.

The appeal was allowed, and an order was made returning the matter to the lower court for a rehearing before a different judge.

Licensed insolvency trustee: Summary

This decision clearly states what a court expects from a court-appointed receiver.

Does your company have too much debt and is in danger of shutting down? Are you concerned that future interest rate hikes will make currently manageable debt totally unmanageable? Is the pain and stress of financial problems now negatively affecting your health?

If so, contact the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of helping people and companies in need of financial restructuring and counselling. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals licensed and supervised by the Federal government to provide debt settlement and financial restructuring services.

We offer a free consultation to help you solve your problems. We understand your pain that debt causes. We can also end it right away from your life. This will allow you to begin a fresh start, Starting Over Starting Now. Call the Ira Smith Team today so that we can begin helping you and get you back into a healthy, stress-free life.licensed insolvency trustee receiver appointed by court

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

SUCCESSION LAW REFORM ACT OPPORTUNITIES FROM A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

succession law reform act

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Succession Law Reform Act Brandon’s Blog, please scroll down to the bottom and click on the podcast.

Succession Law Reform Act: Introduction

I wish to focus on the last provincial statute that is also important for the administration of a deceased estate; the Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26.

This is my last blog in this collection to show how it would certainly be proper to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

As always, given that we are not lawyers, and I am not offering in this or any of the other Brandon’s Blogs in this series, suggestions on wills or estate issues. For that, you have to consult your lawyer.

My estate trustee blogs

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I discussed some crucial issues when it entails a deceased estate and why a LIT would certainly be exceptionally knowledgable and qualified to serve as an estate trustee.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I discussed why many times moms and dads attempt doing the correct thing by selecting their youngsters as estate trustees and the several times it simply ends up all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the needs and stipulations of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. As a matter of fact, a lot of the tasks called for by the Estates Act are currently carried out in the insolvency context by a LIT.

My blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I clarified why a LIT is an appropriate specialist to lead the management of Estates Act Canada.

In the blog TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE, I describe the duties of a trustee under the Trustee Act Ontario and how a bankruptcy trustee is experienced to carry out those duties.

In this blog, I will explain why a bankruptcy trustee would be extremely comfortable working with this provincial legislation.

Things an estate trustee must be aware of

The Act has 79 sections and regulations. Sections 1 through 43 inclusive, set the ground rules for establishing wills and their validity.

The Act figures out how your estate and assets will be allocated to family members based on based upon guidance and a collection of policies.

This statute is different from the other ones I reviewed affecting acting as an estate trustee in a deceased estate. The Act is really just a set of guiding rules.

Intestacy and the entitlement of spouse and the preferential share

Section 44 of the Act deals with a person who has a spouse and no living children who die intestate. This section says that his or her spouse is entitled to all the property.

Section 45(1) of this Act deals with the situations where a person dies intestate and has both a spouse and living children. It says that where the value of the deceased’s property is not more than the preferential share, which is a defined term, then the spouse is entitled to all the property.

Preferential share is set by Ontario Regulation 54/95. It says that for the purpose of section 45 of the Act, the preferential share is $200,000.

Section 45(2) of the Act deals with the person who dies intestate, has a spouse and living children, and whose property is worth more than the preferential share. This section says that the spouse is absolutely entitled to the preferential share or the amount of $200,000. Presumably, the spouse and children then have to either agree or litigate about who is entitled to how much of the value above $200,000.

Just to add another wrinkle, Section 45(3) deals with the situation where the deceased dies with a will dealing with some property but intestate to the balance of the property and is survived by both a spouse and children. This section states that the spouse is always entitled to the preferential share out of the property not governed by a will. If the spouse is entitled to property under a will having a value of more than the preferential share ($200,000), then there is no need to be concerned with the workings of the preferential share.

Residue: spouse and children

Section 46(1) of this provincial statute says that where a person dies intestate and has a spouse and one living child, the spouse is entitled to one-half of the residue of the property AFTER payment of the preferential share.

Section 46(2) states that if the intestate dead person has a spouse and more than one child, the spouse is entitled to one-third of the residue. Again, this is after payment of the preferential share. Section 46(3) deals with the situation of any children predeceasing the parent who died intestate. This section says that for the purposes of calculating the spouse’s share, assume the deceased child(ren) is alive.

Distribution of kin

Section 47 of the Succession Law Reform Act deals with how property should be distributed when a person dies intestate. The general principle starts with the property being divided between the spouse and living children as described above. The balance of the section deals with the treatment of grandchildren, parents, siblings and nephews and nieces when a person dies intestate.

This section ultimately says that if there are no kin, then the intestate property becomes the property of the Crown under the Escheats Act, 2015.

Succession Law Reform Act: Designation of beneficiaries of interest in funds or plans, survivorship and support of dependants

The balance of the Act deals with specific rules about:

  • the designation in plans or funds of specific beneficiaries;
  • how to deal with the death of two or more persons at the same time who either hold property together or may be entitled to all or some of the other’s property; and
  • support of dependants.

Summary

I really hope that this collection of blogs show to you just how the various provincial statutes describing the obligations of a trustee or estate trustee tracks actually near to exactly how a LIT executes in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy mandate.

If you have any type of concerns about a deceased estate and the requirements for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, call the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

If you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20245″]

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE ACT ONTARIO BY A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20240″]

Trustee Act Ontario: Introduction

I want to highlight a provincial statute that is also important for the administration of a deceased estate; the Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23 (Trustee Act Ontario). This blog continues my blog series to show how it would be proper to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

As always, since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

My prior estate blogs

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I looked at some essential matters when it involves a deceased estate and why a LIT would be extremely knowledgable and competent to act as an estate trustee of a deceased estate with those basic requirements.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I explained why many times parents try doing the proper thing by appointing their children as estate trustees and how many times it just turns out all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the requirements and provisions of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. In fact, most of the duties required by the Estates Act are already performed in the insolvency context by a LIT.

My blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I explained why a LIT is a right professional to lead the administration of Estates Act Canada.

In this and my next blog, I will focus on two more Ontario statutes that impact the administration of a deceased estate by an estate trustee. The three statutes are:

  1. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23; and
  2. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26

As you have by now correctly guessed, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of this provincial legislation.

Things an estate trustee must be aware of

There are various sections of the Trustee Act Ontario that affects the duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee in administering a deceased estate. All the concepts are very familiar to a LIT.

Power of court to appoint new trustees

Section 5(1) of this statute gives the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the authority to make an Order for the appointment of a new trustee. This is the same Court that we attend for Court-appointed receivership and bankruptcy matters. So, a LIT is very familiar with the workings and requirements of this Court.

Who may apply for the appointment of a new trustee, or vesting order

Section 16(1) of this provincial statute says that anyone who has a beneficial interest in the property of the trust can apply for the appointment of a new trustee. This is very similar to how a Court-appointed Receiver is appointed. Although it is normally a secured creditor who makes the application, in theory, it could be any party that has an interest. Section 101(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 states that a receivership Order may be made “…where it seems to a judge of the court to be just or convenient to do so.”. It is the “just and convenient” clause that was relied upon by the judge when we were appointed Receiver and Manager of the assets, properties and undertakings of The Suites at 1 King West condo strata hotel back in August 2007.

For this reason, as a LIT, we are very familiar with this aspect of appointing a trustee.

Power and discretion of trustee for sale

In my blog ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO, I referred to sections 16 and 17 of the Estates Administration Act. Section 17 in particular, provides the estate trustee with the power to pay off the debts of the deceased. It also allows a trustee to distribute or divide the estate among the beneficiaries.

Section 17 of the provincial Act provides the trustee with the authority to sell, but subject to the requirements of the Estates Administration Act.

A LIT, either in receivership or bankruptcy, is extremely acquainted and experienced in the sale of real and personal property. The LIT likewise makes certain that the creditors are paid in the correct order of priority.

Sales by trustees not impeachable on certain grounds

Section 18(1) deals with a certain aspect of the sale of the property. It states that unless it is proven that there was an inadequate sales price, a sale properly made cannot be impeached by any beneficiary. Any beneficiary wanting to try to impeach a sale must prove that the process used resulted in a sales price at less than fair market value.

Similarly, in a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy, the LIT must be able to prove that both the conditions of the sales process and the sales price achieved, was right for the types of assets in the circumstances.

The leading case is the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Royal Bank of Canada v. Soundair Corp., 1991 CanLII 2727 (ON CA). The process a LIT must follow is known as the “Soundair principles”. This is the test used when deciding whether a receiver or trustee applying for Court approval of a sales process and the authority to sell assets has acted properly. The Court must decide whether the receiver or trustee has:

  • made a sufficient effort to get the best price and has not acted improvidently;
  • considered the interests of all parties;
  • Devised a fair process that has integrity by which offers were obtained; and
  • Introduced any element of unfairness in the working out of the process.

Therefore, I submit, that a LIT is very experienced in devising a sales process and selling assets in a way that is fair to all stakeholders or beneficiaries to attempt to maximize sales proceeds.

Trust funds and investing

Section 26 of the Act deals with the area of the requirement for a trustee to maintain trust accounts and to invest trust property in a way that will maximize the return while not putting the capital at risk to swings in investment pricing, inflation or income tax.

The LIT is very familiar and experienced in trust accounts and the investing of trust funds. Section 25 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) deals with the requirement of a trustee to establish trust accounts. Also, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy Directive no. 5R5 deals with Estate funds and banking. The Superintendent also monitors the banking of trust funds by all LITs across Canada.

Therefore a LIT is very knowledgeable and experienced in the banking, investing and protection of trust funds.

Security by the person appointed

If letters of administration were granted under the Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21, section 37(2) of the provincial legislation requires every trustee to post security.

I discussed in my blog ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, the experience of a LIT in the posting of security by way of an insurance company bond.

Actions for torts

Section 38(1) of the provincial statute gives authority to an estate trustee of a deceased person to maintain an action for all torts and injuries to the deceased person or his or her property, except in cases of libel and slander. Any recovery forms part of the deceased’s personal estate. Section 38(3) provides for a limitation on such actions. The action cannot be brought after the expiration of two years from the date of death.

As a LIT, this is a familiar concept to us. When a person or company is insolvent and has a chose in action against one or more parties, such action can be started or continued by a receiver or bankruptcy trustee. In fact, in a bankruptcy, the action actually vests in the trustee.

The receiver or trustee has to make sure that they have a legal opinion on the likelihood of success. The receiver or trustee also has to make sure that they can afford to fund the litigation. The litigation cost cannot reduce the value of the assets under administration. This includes the issue of costs if the action proves unsuccessful.

Distribution of assets under trust deeds for benefit of creditors, or of the assets of the intestate

Section 53(1) of the Act lays out the requirements of a trustee to make a distribution for the general benefit of creditors. As I have described in previous blogs, Section 135 of the BIA deals with the admission and disallowance of proofs of claim and proofs of security.

A LIT is an expert at sorting out creditor claims and could certainly do so under the Trustee Act also.

Trustee Act Ontario: Summary

I hope that this blog reveals to you how the provisions of this provincial statute, detailing the duties of a trustee or estate trustee tracks really close to how a LIT performs in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of a trustee as described in this provincial legislation.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Succession Law Reform Act and how a LIT is most familiar with it also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

 

trustee act ontario

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT CANADA: EASY FOR TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE TO DO

administration of estates act canada

If you would rather hear an audio version of this administration of estates act Canada, please scroll down to the bottom of this page and click on the podcast.

Administration of estates act Canada: Introduction

I want to discuss with you another provincial statute that is very important for the administration of estates act Canada; the Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22. It continues my series of blogs to show how it would be very natural to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate.

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I looked at some essential matters when it involves a deceased estate and why a LIT would be extremely knowledgable and competent to act as an estate trustee of a deceased estate with those basic requirements.

In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I explained why many times parents try doing the proper thing by appointing their children as estate trustees and how many times it just turns out all wrong.

In ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET, I describe how the requirements and provisions of the Estates Act are already very familiar to a bankruptcy trustee. In fact, most of the duties required by the Estates Act are already performed in the insolvency context by a LIT.

In this and the next two blogs, I want to focus on the three more Ontario statutes that deal with the duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee of a deceased estate. The three statutes are:

  1. Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22;
  2. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23; and
  3. Succession Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26

As you have by now correctly guessed, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of the Estates Administration Act.

As always, since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Administration of estates act Canada: Things an estate trustee must be aware of

Payment of debts out of the residuary estate

Section 5 of the Estates Administration Act states that both the personal property and the real property (subject to the rights of mortgagees) is available to pay the debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and the costs of the estate trustee in administering the deceased estate. The LIT is familiar with such a provision.

Section 136(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) prioritizes the reasonable funeral and testamentary expenses incurred by the deceased’s legal representatives. In a bankruptcy, those costs are paid as a preferred unsecured claim, behind trust and secured claims but before payment of ordinary unsecured claims.

Vesting of real estate not disposed of within 3 years

Section 9(1) of the Estates Administration Act states that real property not disposed of or conveyed within three years after the date of death is automatically vested in the persons beneficially entitled to such real property. The exception is if the personal representative or estate trustee has registered a caution on the title, then the three-year period starts from the date the last caution was registered.

The purpose and intent of the BIA is that all property of the bankrupt, not subject to a valid trust claim, security interest or is otherwise exempt, will automatically vest in the bankruptcy trustee. Section 40(1) of the BIA establishes the rules a trustee must follow to return to the debtor any property that could not be realized upon, despite the LIT’s best efforts.

Powers of executors and administrators about selling and conveying real estate

Sections 16 and 17 of the Estates Administration Act gives the power to sell real estate to a personal representative or estate trustee. It also says that additional powers are not just for paying off the debts of the deceased, but also for distributing or dividing the estate among the beneficiaries.

A LIT, either in a receivership or bankruptcy, is very familiar with and experienced in the sale of real and personal property. The LIT also ensures that the creditors are paid in the proper priority.

Protection of purchasers from personal representatives and beneficiaries

Sections 19 and 21(1) of the Estates Administration Act protects a purchaser of real property in good faith and for value from a personal representative or estate trustee. The purchaser can hold the asset free and clear from any debts or liabilities of the deceased, or any claims of the beneficiaries. The only exception would be those claims secured by a specific charge on title against the real property, such as a mortgage.

In an insolvency context, and especially in a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy, a purchaser would be wise to insist on the receiver or bankruptcy trustee obtaining the approval of the Court and vesting Order. The purpose would be to have Court orders approving the sale to the purchaser and vesting the assets in the purchaser.

In this way, the purchaser gains protection against any claims to the assets. The vesting Order vests out the asset(s), replacing it with the cash paid by the purchaser. Those with claims against the asset(s) now have to prove their claim against the cash. A LIT is very familiar and experienced in this aspect of selling assets.

Powers of personal representative about leasing and mortgaging

Section 22(1) of the Estates Administration Act gives the power to the personal representative or estate trustee to lease out real property to provide the deceased’s estate with income. It also allows for the mortgaging of real property to pay off the debts of the deceased.

Section 30(1) of the BIA gives various powers to a bankruptcy trustee. The leasing out of the real property and borrowing money, including giving mortgage security against real property, are two such powers. A Court-appointed receiver would get the same powers from the Order appointing the Receiver. A privately appointed receiver could also, with the permission of the secured creditor who made the private appointment, does the same thing. Therefore, a LIT is very familiar and experienced in exercising these powers and making the necessary business decisions.

Administration of estates act Canada: Summary

I hope that in this blog I have shown you that the provisions of the Estates Administration Act outlining the responsibilities of an estate trustee tracks very closely what a LIT does in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of an estate trustee as described in the Estates Act Ontario.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Trustee Act and how a LIT is most familiar with them also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

ESTATES ACT ONTARIO: TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE REVEALS HIDDEN SECRET

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20226″]

Estates Act Ontario: Introduction

I am continuing my series of blogs to show how it would be very natural to appoint a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or bankruptcy trustee) (formerly known as a bankruptcy trustee) as the estate trustee (formerly called an executor or executrix) of a solvent deceased estate under the Estates Act Ontario. In this blog, I am going to focus on that piece of provincial legislation that guides the activities of an estate trustee.

In my blog TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I set the stage by going over some basics when it comes to a deceased estate and why a LIT would be very comfortable with those basic requirements for an administration of a deceased estate. In the blog, TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?, I described why in some cases parents trying to do the right thing by making all their children an estate trustee could turn out very wrong.

In this and the next two blogs, I want to focus on the three main Ontario statutes that govern the conduct, duties and responsibilities of an estate trustee of a deceased estate. The three statutes that I will talk about are:

  1. Estates Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.21;
  2. Estates Administration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E.22; and
  3. Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23

As you have probably guessed by now, in this blog, I will show how a bankruptcy trustee would be very familiar with the workings of the Estates Act.

Since we are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Provisions a LIT is familiar with

Jurisdiction

Section 5 of the Estates Act Ontario states that letters of administration shall not be granted to a person not residing in Ontario. Similarly, a bankruptcy trustee must be licensed by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in each province the LIT wishes to practice in.

Posting of security

Section 14(2) of the Estates Act Ontario requires that the administrator appointed to administer a deceased estate may be required to post security as the court might require.

Section 5(3)(c) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) (BIA) states that the Superintendent of Bankruptcy can:

“…require the deposit of one or more continuing guaranty bonds or continuing suretyships as security for the due accounting of all property received by trustees and for the due and faithful performance by them of their duties in the administration of estates to which they are appointed, in any amount that the Superintendent may determine…”

The posting of security is another common area that a LIT understands well.

Court can appoint

Section 29 of the Estates Act Ontario deals with the appointment of an estate trustee. This section gives the Ontario Superior Court of Justice the authority to appoint an estate trustee where:

  • a person dies intestate;
  • the estate trustee named in the will refuses to prove the will;
  • where the named estate trustee(s) ask another person be appointed to administer the deceased’s estate; or
  • where there are special circumstances.

Section 243(1) of the BIA gives the Court the power to appoint a receiver. So, assessing the appropriateness of acting as a Court officer and providing consent to do so is something a LIT is quite familiar with.

Accounts to be rendered

Section 39 of the Estates Act Ontario requires the estate trustee to “…render a just and full account…” of the estate trustee’s activities. The LIT is fully familiar with this process. In both a Court-appointed receivership and a bankruptcy administration, the LIT must submit full and detailed accounts showing its activities, fees and disbursements for approval by the Court. This approval process is called taxation. This is another common area between the duties of an estate trustee administering a solvent deceased’s estate and the duties of a LIT.

Admitting and disallowing claims

Sections 44 and 45 of the Estates Act Ontario deals with the rules to be followed in contesting claims made against the deceased’s estate. The LIT is very familiar with this process. Section 135 of the BIA deals with the admission and disallowance of proofs of claim and proofs of security.

The LIT is a perfect party to be able to decipher claims made against a deceased’s estate and follow the provincial statute in the allowance and disallowance of claims.

Disputes as to ownership

Section 46 of the Estates Act Ontario describes the process for handling the claim by any third party to ownership of personal property in the estate not exceeding $800 in value. There are steps in the BIA that a LIT must follow when faced with claims of ownership of property by a third party in the possession of the bankrupt. So resolving such disputes is very familiar to the LIT.

Summary

I hope that in this blog I have successfully made the case that the provisions of the Estates Act Ontario outlining the responsibilities of an estate trustee tracks very closely what a LIT does in either a Court-appointed receivership or bankruptcy administration.

Therefore, the LIT is used to acting as a Court officer and could very easily perform the requirements and duties of an estate trustee as described in the Estates Act Ontario.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write a similar comparison. It will be about the requirements outlined in the Estates Administration Act and how a LIT is most familiar with them also.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.estates act ontario

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE OF PARENTS ESTATE: DO I REALLY HAVE TO?

If trustee of parents estateIf you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Trustee of parents estate

Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom for the podcast.

Trustee of parents estate: Introduction

I want to talk about an issue which is all too common. I am also going to give you two real-life examples. The issue is that of children being named as the estate trustee of parents estate.

I caution that I and my firm are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

Why the children?

Many times in drafting a will, parents want their children to know that the parents trust and love them. So, they not only have their children as beneficiaries of their estate, they also make them the estate trustees (formerly known as executor or executrix). This is natural, but may not be the best choice.

The reason I say this is because the role of the estate trustee is a demanding one that requires a specific skill set. Children don’t always have the necessary skills. What if one or more of the children have great financial skills and have sound judgment, but others don’t. This can lead to differences of opinion and major arguments. In the most extreme case, it can lead to costly and lengthy litigation to dissipate estate assets. Executors must act in the best interests of all beneficiaries. If personal agendas get in the way, then everyone’s best interests can’t be met.

Adult children are probably married. Now you have daughters-in-law and sons-in-law involved in the background. This can lead to a whole host of issues that has nothing to do with the efficient administration of the parents’ estate and being even-handed with all beneficiaries.

What if some of the children have personal financial issues. There will be a temptation for self-dealing or self-enrichment. Again this can lead to major problems.

What if you have an even number of children? Two or four estate trustees can lead to many problems. With two, the estate trustees will always be deadlocked if they don’t see eye to eye. With four, not only can you have a deadlock, but too many cooks may spoil the broth!

Splitting the tasks

Sometimes parents split the tasks. One child will be the estate trustee because she has great financial acumen. The other child will be made responsible for health and living decisions if the parents first become incapacitated. Sounds great in theory. However, the way the health decider child wishes the parents to live may be at odds with the financial person seeing the estate shrinking away. Or, the health decider may make decisions for the parents to live in a way that does not shrink away from the estate, but is demeaning to the parents and does not give them a good quality of life in their final days.

So, as you can see, what started out as the parents wanting to “do right” by their children, can lead to many problems.

What an estate trustee should not do

In my last blog, TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS, I spoke about some basic elements of the role of an estate trustee. I described the process of becoming an estate trustee, and what the responsibilities are.

Now, I want to touch on some practical matters of what an estate trustee should not do.

The first is communicating with some beneficiaries and not others. As I have previously described, one of the roles and responsibilities of an estate trustee is to deal with all beneficiaries even-handedly. The estate trustee cannot tell certain details to some beneficiaries, and not others. So, all communications should be with all beneficiaries at the same time; either in writing or orally. Everyone should get the same information at the same time. The estate trustee does not wish to be accused of favouring some beneficiaries over others.

The second thing not to do is to rush to distribute smaller personal possessions of the deceased. The estate trustee may be pressured by family members to distribute certain items quickly. Possibly because the family member is the proper beneficiary of those small items and wants them as quickly as possible. Alternatively, perhaps they are not the rightful beneficiary of all the items they are claiming. However, they want to get their hands on certain items to stop other family members from getting them. Or perhaps there is a home involved that must be sold, so family members will pressure the estate trustee to clean out the home immediately so that the home can be put up for sale as soon as possible.

As tempting and easy as it might be, the estate trustee must first take steps to:

  • get a copy of the will and the deceased’s financial records
  • take possession and control of all assets
  • ensure that a proper inventory is made and that appraisals are obtained where necessary
  • make sure that all required insurance and bonding is in place

There is another reason. An estate trustee will be putting more pressure on themselves than they should bY making piecemeal distributions. Regardless of value, making a quick distribution to one of the beneficiaries will only give rise to all the other beneficiaries clamouring for their entitlements. The estate trustee may not be in a position for some time to be able to make a proper distribution to all other beneficiaries. This will only lead to headaches for the estate trustee.

Why some children may not want to be an estate trustee

There can be danger in being an estate trustee. In my last blog, I highlighted specific expertise and knowledge that an estate trustee must have. I also discussed how a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) also possesses the same skill set required of an estate trustee.

A trustee, including an estate trustee, acts in a fiduciary capacity. The estate trustee is fully accountable for all decisions made and steps were taken with respect to the assets. Not only is it important to have the necessary financial skills, but an estate trustee also has to be aware of the myriad of income tax issues. Final income tax returns must be filed. The estate trustee has a duty to ensure that all income tax legislation requirements are met, including the obtaining of clearance certificates. Any loss to the estate as a result of things an estate trustee either did or did not do, the estate trustee will be personally liable for.

The steps required in formulating an appropriate sales process for the different asset types not being directly distributed to beneficiaries is not totally scientific. There is some art to it as well. Making wrong decisions can expose the estate to loss of value, which will blow back right onto the estate trustee.

For these reasons, children may not wish to take on responsibility. The smart ones will understand that they do not have the required skill set. In other cases, the children may see the real possibility of creating family strife if they were to take on the role of an estate trustee. So what if children are named in the will as the estate trustees, but they don’t wish to take on the role. Must they anyway?

Renunciation of estate trustee Ontario

If you have not yet applied for probate or have otherwise not started to administer the estate, you do not have to be an estate trustee. There is a specific form to complete in order to renunciate your position as an estate trustee. Again, it must be done before you take any action as the estate trustee. If you have already applied for probate, or have started administering the estate and now find that you are in over your head, you cannot renunciate your position. You must make application to Court for an Order removing you as the estate trustee. I would suggest that if you are the sole estate trustee, you should have someone else lined up to succeed you. Otherwise, the Court may not allow you to be removed.

Two real-life examples

Example 1

In my blog, COURT APPOINTED ESTATE TRUSTEE CASE STUDY: IF IT WAS EASY YOU WOULDN’T NEED US, I described one of our case studies where we were appointed estate trustee to sell real estate. In that case, neither of the beneficiaries were capable of agreeing on anything. They were also incapable of carrying out the role of taking possession and control of the real property, Insuring it and selling it. Legal counsel for one of the beneficiaries made an application to Court seeking an Order appointing Ira Smith Trustee & Receiver Inc. as an estate trustee.

The Court made the Order. With the approval of the Court, we listed the property for sale, obtained approval to our actions and activities, including a sale of the property. We then proposed a distribution of funds which also was approved by the Court. We made the distribution and obtained our discharge. This is a perfect example of how our skill set as a licensed insolvency trustee was recognized by the Court and allowed us to carry out the mandate in an efficient way.

Example 2

Recently, one of Ira Smith’s cousins needed to update her will and name an estate trustee. This cousin has three children. None of the children believed that they had the necessary skills and knowledge to be an estate trustee. They also agreed that it was not a good idea for any of them to take on that role.

However, there was one thing that the mother and her three children could all agree on. That was that Ira had the necessary skills to be the estate trustee. They unanimously agreed that it would be a good idea for Ira to take on that role. Ira’s cousin asked him if he would. He told his cousin that he was honoured that they all thought so highly of him. He agreed to be named in her will as the estate trustee.

The children were smart. They knew what they didn’t know. They all agreed on the estate trustee being proposed. A huge weight was taken off of the mother’s shoulders.

Trustee of parents estate: Why not appoint a Toronto bankruptcy trustee?

I hope that you can see that the knowledge, experience, and expertise of a licensed insolvency trustee would stand him or her in good stead to act as executor, executrix or estate trustee of a deceased estate. Many times, it may be a smart move to allow an independent neutral third party act as the estate trustee. Especially one like a licensed insolvency trustee who is used to acting as the independent Court officer.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20211″]

[monkeytools msnip=”http://memochimp.com/memo.php?u=4931&p=3676″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TRUSTEE OF DECEASED ESTATE: WHAT A TORONTO BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE KNOWS

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20198″]

Trustee of deceased estate: Introduction

I have previously written on what happens when a person dies insolvent, i.e. their debts are greater than the value of their assets. My blogs on being a trustee of deceased estate that is insolvent are:

I am now switching a bit. Over the next few weeks, I am going to be writing a series of blogs and vlogs to explain why I believe that a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) is the professional you should be thinking of making the executor of a deceased estate and recording it in your will. I am talking about solvent estates. Those with many assets and beneficiaries. I will be making the case why over the next few weeks. I will not be on insolvent estates of deceased persons.

I repeat that these blogs and vlogs will have nothing to do with debt, insolvency or bankruptcy. However, I will show how, based on the knowledge and expertise possessed by licensed insolvency trustees, it makes them the perfect candidate to serve as an executor of a deceased estate that is rich with assets. I will also be focussing my comments on the Province of Ontario. There may be some variations from province to province.

I caution that I and my firm are not lawyers, and I am by no means providing in this and upcoming Brandon’s Blogs advice on wills or estate planning matters. For that, you must consult your lawyer.

In this blog, I wish to set the stage by going over some basics when it comes to a deceased estate.

Trustee of deceased estate: The executor/executrix or estate trustee

In Ontario, an estate trustee (also known as the executor or executrix) is the only individual with the lawful authority to handle or disperse an estate. When an individual dies they might leave items, property, real estate, cash and investments and other possessions which is called their estate.

Probate is a treatment to ask the court to:

  • provide an individual with the authority to work as the estate trustee of an estate;
  • verify the authority of an individual acting as the estate trustee named in the deceased’s will; and
  • officially accept that the deceased’s will is their legitimate last will.

You can apply for probate in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The procedure is governed by the Estates Act and the related Rules of Civil Procedure.dece

If your probate application succeeds, the court will provide a Certificate of Appointment of Estate Trustee, which is evidence that an individual has the lawful authority to manage the estate. If there is a will, it is also evidence that the will is valid.

Trustee of deceased estate: Must I always apply for probate?

A probate Certificate is not needed in every situation for a deceased estate. Prior to beginning an application for probate, you might want to establish whether the deceased estate actually needs a probate Certificate.

An application for a probate Certificate is normally made if:

  • the departed individual passed away without a will
  • the deceased’s will does not show an estate trustee
  • a financial institution desires evidence of an individual’s lawful authority to get the cash or financial investments of the deceased
  • the estate’s properties consist of real estate which does not pass to an individual by right of survivorship
  • there is a disagreement about who ought to be the estate trustee
  • there is a conflict or possible conflict about the legitimacy of the will; or
  • some of the beneficiaries are unable to supply legal consent.

Trustee of deceased estate: Trustee of estate responsibility

What should the estate trustee’s first steps be? Here is where the actions the estate trustee should immediately take are almost the same as when a licensed insolvency trustee is first appointed either as:

The will and financial records

Assuming the family has already made arrangements for and the funeral has taken place, the estate trustee should first find a copy of the will and any books and records of the deceased that will explain the deceased’s financial affairs. If the estate trustee cannot find a copy of the will, he or she should consult with the deceased’s family and lawyer. Hopefully one or both will have a copy.

As the licensed insolvency trustee, we must also find the books and records of the company or person, so that we can start learning about the financial affairs of the insolvent or bankrupt.

Proof of authority

The estate trustee will also require a certified copy of the death certificate, to prove the death to financial institutions and the government. The will, and/or the probate Certificate, will be proof of the estate trustee’s authority to act.

In the same way, the licensed insolvency trustee requires a copy of its Appointment Letter in a private receivership, the Court order in a Court-appointed receivership, or the Certificate of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in a bankruptcy. These documents evidence the appointment of the licensed insolvency trustee.

Taking possession and control of the assets

The estate trustee must now take control of any assets that do not automatically by operation of law transfer to another person by right of survivorship. The estate trustee must establish physical control, take an inventory of the assets and arrange for appraisals to be performed where required. The estate trustee should establish the market value of the assets as soon as possible.

In the same way, upon being appointed as either receiver or trustee, a licensed insolvency trustee must establish control and/or possession of the assets, properties and undertakings of the insolvent/bankrupt debtor, whether in the debtor’s possession or that of a third party. The licensed insolvency trustee must make an inventory of the assets and where required, arrange for appraisals.

Insurance and bonding

The estate trustee must make sure that, in the case of real property and chattels, that the assets are properly insured. As well, if an application was made to Court for probate and the Court issued the Certificate, the Court may also require the estate trustee to get a bond for a specific value to protect the beneficiaries. The amount of the bond will have a relation to the estimated value of the assets.

In the same way, the receiver/trustee must make sure that the hard assets are properly insured. In a bankruptcy, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy sometimes requires the trustee to get a bond to protect the bankruptcy estate.

The bond will be issued by an insurance company licensed to provide such coverage in Ontario.

Trustee of deceased estate: The responsibilities of the estate trustee

In general terms, an estate trustee has the following responsibilities:

  • be impartial amongst beneficiaries
  • act in a commercially reasonable way
  • to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries
  • not make decisions for individual gain
  • keep accurate records of all decisions made and actions and activities; and
  • acting in accordance with the will if one exists

In every Court appointment, be it a receivership or bankruptcy, the licensed insolvency trustee must live up to these same standards. Rather than beneficiaries, there are stakeholders. The Court officer must be impartial and must act in the best interests of all stakeholders.

Trustee of deceased estate: Trustee vs executor of an estate

So hopefully from this blog, you can see that the knowledge, experience and expertise of a licensed insolvency trustee would stand him or her in a good position to act as executor, executrix or estate trustee of a deceased estate.

If you have any questions about a deceased estate and the need for an estate trustee, whether it is solvent or insolvent, contact the Ira Smith Team. We have decades and generations of experience in helping people and companies overcome their financial problems. You don’t need to suffer; we can end your pain.

In my next blog, I am going to write about a topic that is becoming more and more common in deceased estates; picking the right estate trustee. As you will see, it is much more than just finding the right skill set.

In the meantime, if you have any questions at all, contact the Ira Smith Team.

trustee of deceased estate

 

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

REDWATER ENERGY SUPREME COURT DECIDES

redwater energy supreme court

If you would prefer to listen to the audio version of this Redwater Energy Supreme Court Brandon’s Blog, please scroll to the bottom for the podcast.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: Introduction

On January 31, 2019, the Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision was released. The 5-2 decision, in this case, Orphan Well Association v. Grant Thornton Ltd. overturned two Alberta lower Court decisions. It is now the law of the land that, before creditors receive any money, the receiver or trustee will have to spend the funds in its possession on reclamation or other environmental costs that provincial law may need.

The decision also made it clear that the receiver or trustee does not have to spend money it does not have. However, whatever money it recovers from the sale of assets, on a net basis, will first have to go to provincially mandated cleanup costs of the insolvent company’s property, before secured or unsecured creditors see a penny.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: What the decision means

In my opinion, this is an important decision. Where provincial laws require companies to spend money to take certain steps when the business ceases, the assets of the company will be available to pay such costs.

Any company which is either a provincially regulated industry, or where provincial laws such as environmental laws have a real impact, will be affected. A Province will be able to insist that when a company ceases operating or is in receivership or bankruptcy, the company and its receiver or trustee, must use up to the full net realization from the sale of assets, to do what the provincial law requires, such as remediation of the real property.

This will no doubt affect how lenders view the value of their security and how much to lend to such companies. Property owners have now also been afforded some measure of protection against a commercial or industrial tenant’s activities and environmental transgressions.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: Background

In my January 10, 2018 blog, REDWATER ENERGY CORP. – SUPREME COURT OF CANADA TO DECIDE WHO PAYS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP COSTS OF THE BANKRUPTCY COMPANY, I described the 2-1 Alberta Court of Appeal decision upholding the Redwater ruling of the lower Court. The lower Court decision protected, in a bankruptcy, a lender’s secured priority over provincial ecological clean-up requirements.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: The provincial environmental legislation

To work oil and gas sources in Alberta, a business requires a property interest in the oil or gas (commonly, a mineral lease with the Crown), rights and a licence issued by the Alberta Energy Regulator (Regulator). Under provincial regulation, the Regulator will certainly not provide a permit to remove, process or transport oil and gas in Alberta unless the licensee takes on end-of-life duties for plugging and capping oil wells to avoid leakages, taking apart surface area frameworks as well as restoring the surface area to its previous condition. These end-of-life responsibilities are called “abandonment” and “reclamation”.

The Licensee Liability Rating Program is one way the Regulator looks to guarantee the end-of-life commitments required of licensees. As a component of this program, the Regulator provides each business a Liability Management Rating (LMR), which is the proportion between the accumulated value assigned by the Regulator to a company’s assets under license and the accumulated liabilities determined by the Regulator to the last expense of abandoning and reclaiming those properties.

For determining the LMR, all the permits held by a business are dealt with as a bundle. A licensee’s LMR is determined monthly. Where it dips below the required ratio, the licensee is called upon to top up its LMR back up to the recommended level by paying a security deposit, executing the end-of-life responsibilities, or transferring permits with the Regulator’s authorization. If either the transferor or the transferee would have an LMR below 1.0 after such transfer, the Regulator will typically decline to authorize the permit transfer.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: The insolvency of an oil and gas company

The insolvency of oil and gas firm licensed for operation in Alberta involves Alberta’s detailed licensing regime, which is binding on firms operating in the oil and gas market. The Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (R.S.C., 1985, c. B-3) (BIA), is the federal government’s statute that controls the management of an insolvent’s estate and the organized and fair dealing of the insolvent’s property for the benefit of the unsecured creditors.

Alberta’s Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA) makes certain that a licensee’s regulatory responsibilities will remain to be satisfied when it goes through bankruptcy by including the trustee of a licensee in the interpretation of the term “operator” for the goals of the obligation to reclaim and by ensuring that an order to execute reclamation work can be provided to a trustee.

Nevertheless, it specifically restricts a trustee’s responsibility about such an order to the value of the assets in the insolvent estate, other than for gross negligence or willful misconduct.

The Oil and Gas Conservation Act (OGCA) and the Pipeline Act take a more common method: they merely include trustees in the meaning of “licensee”. Therefore, every power which these Acts offer the Regulator versus a licensee can in theory additionally be worked out versus a trustee.

The Regulator has entrusted the authority to reclaim and abandon “orphans”– oil and gas properties and their sites left in an incorrectly deserted or unreclaimed state by inoperative companies at the close of their insolvency process– to the Orphan Well Association (OWA), an independent non-profit entity. The OWA has no power to look for compensation of its costs, however, it might be compensated up to the amount of any security deposit held by the Regulator to the credit of the licensee of the orphans once it has actually finished its environmental cleanup.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: The Redwater receivership

Redwater, a publicly traded oil and gas firm, was initially given licenses by the Regulator in 2009. Its major assets were 127 oil and gas properties — wells, pipelines and related facilities — and their equal permits. A few of its licensed wells were still producing, yet the bulk was tapped out and strained with reclamation and abandonment obligations that surpassed their worth.

In 2013, ATB Financial, which had complete knowledge of the end-of-life responsibilities connected with Redwater’s properties, advanced funds to Redwater and, in return, was given a security interest in Redwater’s existing and after-acquired property. In mid-2014, Redwater started to experience financial problems.

ATB appointed its receiver in 2015. Back then, Redwater owed ATB roughly $5.1 million and had 84 wells, 7 facilities and 36 pipelines. Seventy-two were non-active or spent, however, considering that Redwater’s LMR did not go down below the recommended proportion until after it entered receivership, it never paid any type of security deposit to the Regulator.

Upon being informed of Redwater’s receivership, the Regulator advised the receiver that it was legitimately bound to fulfill Redwater’s abandonment commitments for all licensed properties before dispersing any funds or completing any insolvency proceeding. The Regulator cautioned that it would not accept the transfer of any one of Redwater’s licenses unless it was satisfied that both the transferee and the transferor would have the ability to carry out all governing responsibilities and that the transfer would not create deterioration in Redwater’s LMR.

The receiver determined that it could not satisfy the Regulator’s demands since the cost of completion of the end-of-life responsibilities for the spent wells would likely surpass the realizable value for the producing wells. Based upon this evaluation, the receiver notified the Regulator that it was occupying and controlling just 17 of Redwater’s most productive wells, 3 related facilities and 12 pipelines (Retained Assets). The receiver also advised that it was not occupying or controlling of any of Redwater’s various other licensed properties (Renounced Assets).

The receiver’s position was that it had no requirement to do any regulatory requirements connected with the Renounced Assets.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: The Regulator’s and the receiver’s positions

The Regulator responded by issuing orders under the OGCA and the Pipeline Act calling for Redwater to suspend and abandon the Renounced Assets (Abandonment Orders). The Regulator imposed short target dates, as it took into consideration the Renounced Assets an environmental and safety threat.

Alberta’s Regulator and the OWA applied for an affirmation that the receiver’s renunciation of the Renounced Assets was void and for orders needing it to follow the Abandonment Orders and to carry out the completion of the end-of-life responsibilities connected with Redwater’s licensed properties. The Regulator did not look to hold the receiver responsible for these responsibilities past the assets in the Redwater estate.

The receiver brought a cross-application looking for authorization to seek a sales procedure leaving out the Renounced Assets and an order directing that the Regulator cannot stop the transfer of the licenses connected with the Retained Assets based upon, inter alia:

  • the LMR requirements;
  • failure to abide by the Abandonment Orders;
  • refusal to take possession of the Renounced Assets; or
  • Redwater’s outstanding debts to the Regulator.

A bankruptcy order was made against Redwater and the receiver was appointed as trustee. The trustee invoked s.14.06(4)(a)(ii) of the BIA about the Renounced Assets. This section of the BIA allows for the abandonment of a property and to not hold the trustee personally liable for remediation costs.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: The Alberta decisions

The Alberta lower Courts concurred with the receiver and held that the Regulator’s suggested use its legal powers to impose Redwater’s conformity with reclamation and abandonment commitments in bankruptcy contravened the BIA in 2 ways:

  1. It required the receiver the commitments of a licensee in connection with the Redwater properties disclaimed by the receiver/trustee, contrary to s. 14.06(4) of the BIA.
  2. It ignored the priority for the distribution of a bankrupt’s assets under the BIA by requiring the provable claims of the Regulator, an unsecured creditor, be paid in advance of the claims of Redwater’s secured creditors. The dissenting Judge in the Court of Appeal would have permitted the Regulator’s appeal on the basis that there was no conflict between Alberta’s environmental laws and the BIA.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: The Redwater Energy SCC decision

The majority 5-2 Supreme Court of Canada (SCC or the Supreme Court) decision states that:

  • The Regulator’s use of its legal powers does not create a conflict with the BIA to trigger the doctrine of federal paramountcy.
  • Section 14.06(4) of the BIA deals with the personal liability of trustees and does not let a trustee to walk away from the environmental liabilities of the estate it is administering.
  • The Regulator is not asserting any claims provable in the bankruptcy.
  • The priority scheme in the BIA is not being interfered with.
  • No conflict is caused by the receiver’s status as a licensee under Alberta legislation. Alberta’s regulatory regime can coexist with and work with the BIA.

The Supreme Court decision goes on to say that bankruptcy is not a licence to ignore rules, and insolvency professionals are bound by and must follow valid provincial laws during bankruptcy.

They must, as an example:

  • adhere to non-financial responsibilities that are binding on the insolvent estate, that are not provable claims; as well as
  • the impacts of which do not contravene the BIA, regardless of the effects this might have for the insolvent’s secured creditors.

The SCC held that given the procedural nature of the BIA, the bankruptcy regimen counts greatly on the ongoing rules of provincial regulations. However, where there is an authentic problem between provincial statutes about property and civil liberties and bankruptcy regulations, the BIA dominates.

The SCC went on to say that the BIA has two main functions: (i) the fair distribution of the insolvent’s property among its creditors; and (ii) the insolvent’s financial rehabilitation. As Redwater is a company that will never arise from bankruptcy, just the first function matters.

The Abandonment Orders and the LMR demands are based upon legitimate provincial regulations of basic application — specifically, the type of legitimate provincial laws whereupon the BIA is constructed.

The Supreme Court of Canada decision found that there is no conflict between the Alberta regulatory scheme and s. 14.06 of the BIA, because, under s. 14.06(4), a trustee’s disclaimer of real property when there is an order to remedy any environmental condition or damage affecting that property protects the trustee from personal liability. The Supreme Court of Canada decision makes it very clear that although the BIA protects the trustee or receiver from personal liability, the ongoing liability of the bankrupt estate is unaffected.

The Supreme Court of Canada said that the end‑of‑life obligations binding on the trustee and receiver are not claims provable in the Redwater bankruptcy. Not all environmental obligations enforced by a regulator will be claims provable in bankruptcy.

The test that must be applied to decide whether a particular regulatory obligation amounts to a claim provable in bankruptcy is: (1) there must be a debt, a liability or an obligation to a creditor; (2) the debt, liability or obligation must be incurred before the debtor becomes bankrupt; and (3) it must be possible to attach a monetary value to the debt, liability or obligation. Only the first and third parts of the test are at issue in the Redwater case.

Bottom line, a court must decide whether there are enough facts indicating the existence of an environmental duty that will ripen into a financial liability owed to a regulator. In determining whether a non‑monetary regulatory obligation of a bankrupt is too remote or too speculative to be included in the bankruptcy proceeding, the court must apply the general rules that apply to future or contingent claims.

It must be sufficiently certain that the contingency will come to pass — in other words, that the regulator will enforce the obligation by performing the environmental work and seeking reimbursement.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: BIA contemplates environmental regulators will extract value

The Supreme Court of Canada also went on to say that in crafting the priority scheme of the BIA, Parliament intended to permit regulators to place a first charge on real property of a bankrupt affected by an environmental condition or damage to fund remediation. Thus, the BIA explicitly contemplates that environmental regulators will extract value from the bankrupt’s real property if that property is affected by an environmental condition or damage.

Furthermore, Redwater’s only real assets were affected by environmental conditions or damage. Accordingly, the Abandonment Orders and LMR requirements did not seek to force Redwater to fulfill end‑of‑life obligations with assets unrelated to the environmental condition or damage. In other words, recognizing that the Abandonment Orders and LMR requirements are not provable claims and do not interfere with the aims of the BIA — rather, it facilitates them.

Redwater Energy Supreme Court decision: What about your company or client?

Is your company subject to significant costs under provincial law should it stop operating for any reason, including receivership or bankruptcy? Are you a secured creditor who loaned money to such a company and are now questioning the value of your security?

If so, you need the help of a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee). Call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience in the restructuring, turnaround, monitoring and liquidating insolvent companies.

Contact the Ira Smith Team today for your free consultation so that we can solve your financial problems and get you back on the right path, Starting Over Starting Now.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20169″]

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

GAMBLING DEBTS HELP

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20148″]

Gambling debts: Introduction

The Canadian insolvency process is geared to deal with gambling debts or any debt resulting from addiction. It does not only deal with the debts caused by borrowing money to feed an addiction. The insolvency process is uniquely positioned to deal with the person’s total rehabilitation. When the person hits rock bottom with debts they cannot repay and no more credit to keep borrowing to feed the addiction, a licensed insolvency trustee (LIT or Trustee) (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee) is positioned to help not only with the debt issues but also the rehabilitation issues. Let me explain.

My firm has been involved in helping people out of their debt problems arising from addiction issues. The most common are gambling, alcohol and drug addictions. Professionals have referred us their family members suffering because of an addiction. In my January 31, 2018 blog, GAMBLING DEBT BANKRUPTCY: CAN GAMBLING DEBT BE DISCHARGED IN BANKRUPTCY?, I discussed from a procedural view the issue of gambling debts and bankruptcy. In this blog, I want to focus on how the insolvency process, especially bankruptcy, can deal with overall rehabilitation.

I will draw on my own personal case studies and specifically refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in Bankruptcy and Insolvency in Donaldson (Re), 2019 NSSC 33.

Gambling debts: What the LIT is expected to do

The free consultation provided by a LIT to an insolvent person pre-filing is where a LIT would find the addiction issues. It will also be noted on the person’s initial filing documents in filing either a consumer proposal or for bankruptcy. The Canadian insolvency system is geared towards giving the honest but unfortunate consumer a fresh start.

In cases of addiction, the LIT must also point the person to community resources to aid in healing the person with the addiction to lead a sober life. This must be a pre-condition for any LIT to support the addicted person’s consumer proposal or discharge from bankruptcy. This is how my practice works. It is also the view of the Court in the Donaldson case.

Gambling debts: The Donaldson facts

Gloria Donaldson and Wayne Donaldson are fourth-time bankrupts. This is their 5th experience with the Canadian insolvency process as one of their filings was a consumer proposal. They made separate filings. The Court found that it really should have been a joint filing.

Gloria and Wayne were 65 and 73, respectively. The Court holding their discharge hearing found both Gloria and Wayne to be forthright, honest and trustworthy. Yet, this is the 4th bankruptcy and the 5th use the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c. B-3, as modified (BIA).

They declared the source of this bankruptcy as an overextension of credit on real house improvements. They did not list gambling. However, Registrar Balmanoukian found that there is no doubt on the evidence before him that gambling was a significant factor to at least speed up driving the Donaldson’s to this 5th insolvency filing.

The Donaldson’s filings spanned a duration of nearly 40 years. They are seniors. Their future income is restricted, by age and health.

Gambling debts: The bankruptcy discharge will not be easy

A 4th bankruptcy is a really major issue. Without a doubt, also for applications including third-time bankrupts the Courts have revealed an unwillingness in providing the bankrupt’s discharge. At the very least not without an extensive suspension or similar burdensome terms.

Coming to Court for a discharge as a 3rd-time bankrupt is a serious matter. The Court must be satisfied that the insolvent understands and has made enough adjustments in his/her life. The Court wants to know it won’t be possible that an additional bankruptcy will take place.

By the time a person has actually gotten in a 3rd bankruptcy, the objective, as well as the intent of the Act, changes from its restorative function of helping sympathetic yet unfortunate debtors to a shielding culture, and protecting innocent possible creditors. The most effective intents and hopes of such bankrupts is no longer the main issue. The main issue is that creditors be shielded from the insolvent’s shown economic inexperience, carelessness and negligence.

In a 4th bankruptcy, the Court has to pay cautious interest in creating a suitable yet custom treatment when determining what is right in the bankrupt’s application for discharge. The Bankruptcy Court is not just there to be a financial car wash. The truth is that these bankrupts are not rogues. That, however, is not enough of a reason to approve a discharge.

A 4th bankruptcy is a clarion call to the Court and its officers that these people should never come before the Bankruptcy Court again. The issues need to be fixed.

Gambling debts: The bankruptcy discharge must serve a purpose

The proof is clear that Mr. and Mrs. Donaldson did not have the possibility of having sources with which to pay any kind of meaningful amount on their much debt. The passage of time and their health and wellness have actually prevented this. Nevertheless, that does not imply that the Court can only enforce a token wag of the finger and a reprimand “do not do it ever again”.

What the Registrar decided is frankly, something that the LIT should have already done. When I am faced with potential bankrupts whose debt has arisen as a result of spending money they did not have on their addiction, this is what I tell them. I say that if they wish to have any chance of having a discharge from bankruptcy, then they need to get themselves into a rehab program immediately. Gamblers Anonymous and AA are two that we regularly refer clients to. We also tell them that for discharge purposes, they will need to have their sponsor verify to us, in writing, that they have regularly attended and continue to attend meetings to help themselves.

This way, by the time we come to Court, we can prove rehabilitation has already begun. Real rehabilitation helps the person get back on to a clean, healthy life. We have many examples of people we have helped overcome drug, alcohol and gambling addictions, as part of cleaning up their financial debts. In some cases, these people have even become leaders and sponsors themselves in the rehabilitation program that helped them so much. I have great pride in hearing years later from such former addicts I have helped when they tell me that they have saved up enough to buy a home, now have a better job and their family is in a better place because of my help.

The Donaldsons need to get themselves resolved to live within their earnings. They also must learn to stop gambling if they wish to have a chance of surviving this bankruptcy.

Gambling debts: The Registrar’s decision

So the Registrar ordered that the Donaldsons:

  • Shall attend such counselling for gambling abuse and/or addiction for such period as is necessary to get an opinion from a qualified counsellor or medical professional that both of the Donaldson’s are able to conduct themselves without going back to gambling in any way.
  • Refrain from gambling in any form, and further that they enrol and stay enrolled in the voluntary exclusion program with Casino Nova Scotia;
  • Absolutely stop obtaining credit from any lender in any form, except as approved in advance and in writing by the Trustee.
  • Disclose and subject to any provincial exemptions, turn over to the Trustee any property of either or both that comprises “property of the bankrupt” within the meaning of the BIA between the date of the Donaldson’s’ bankruptcies and their discharge.
  • Upon compliance with the foregoing for a period of at least five years from the date of the decision, the Donaldson’s may make a further application for discharge.

The Registrar’s decision is right. The Donaldsons will finally get the help they need to fight their gambling addiction. They will come clean with their LIT about handing over any non-exempt assets. They will not be able to borrow money for gambling again. Once they have been “clean” for 5 years, they may reapply to their discharge from bankruptcy. Hopefully, by then, they will be able to live a healthier life without the stress of gambling debts.

Gambling debts: Do you have too much debt?

Do you have too much debt because of an addiction or otherwise? Are you worried that the future interest rate hikes will make presently affordable commitments entirely unmanageable? Is the discomfort, tension and anxiousness presently detrimentally affecting your health and wellness as well as health?

If so, speak to the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of helping people and companies looking for financial restructuring. As a licensed insolvency trustee (formerly called a bankruptcy trustee), we are the only experts licensed and supervised by the Federal government to provide insolvency services.

Call the Ira Smith Team today for your free consultation and to make sure that we can begin assisting you to return right into a healthy, balanced, hassle-free life.

gambling debts

Categories
Brandon Blog Post

TWO INCOME TRAP OF SEN. WARREN

two income trap

If you would rather listen to the two income trap blog audio file, please scroll down to the end for the podcast.

Two income trap: Introduction

In the last 50 years, women have entered the labour force in real numbers. This did not result in families having a much easier time of it economically. A great number of people thought it would because a family now had two full-time income earners. Financial troubles might if anything be much more extensive among two income households today. This is called a two income trap.

Two income trap: Senator Elizabeth Warren

I recently read an article on the United States Senator Elizabeth Warren. I had not been actually familiar with her history prior to reviewing the write-up. Turns out that she was a lawyer who focussed on bankruptcy legislation. She was a professor at the Harvard Law School.

Senator Warren’s daughter, Amelia Warren Tyagi, is an entrepreneur and management consultant. They co-authored a book “The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke“. It was first released in 2003 and an updated version was released in 2016. The book is a sociological review of exactly how American households and life have developed from the 1960s to contemporary times. Although it is a testimonial of American life, I think the same concepts and conclusions can be related to Canada’s middle class too.

Two income trap: The rise in middle-class insolvencies

One reality that bothered the writers was that by the early 2000s, bankruptcies in the middle class became greater than in any other American socio-economic group. To put it simply, when considering the family members that are declaring bankruptcy, it’s not the extremely poorest or the really wealthiest. It actually has to do with the middle class and the kind of financial difficulties they meet.

The writers wished to attempt to clarify why much more middle-class households, making even more than ever previously, saw a 500% rise in individual bankruptcy filings from the very early 1980s to the very early 2000s. The writers likewise keep in mind that along with personal bankruptcies, home mortgage foreclosures were up greater than 3.5 times than in the very early 1980s. This is prior to the 2008 economic disaster mess!

Two income trap: The financial disintegration of the middle-class household

Their study began with a solitary reality. The possibility that a family with youngsters would wind up in bankruptcy is more than families without children. They uncovered that households that have youngsters in the family are almost 3 times more likely to wind up declaring bankruptcy than households that do not have children.

The writers think it is really vital to comprehend the problems triggering middle-class economic issues. This is due to the fact that they discovered that 2 out of every 3 households that applied for bankruptcy have actually had a real job loss or loss of income prior to their declaring bankruptcy.

Someone’s lost a job; a person’s had a major downturn when it comes to households where both the husband and wife work. Sometimes both of them have actually lost their job before bankruptcy. So we’re actually talking about individuals that are not just way down on the earnings side. They had no financial savings or emergency money fund to draw on when the unanticipated calamity struck. Stating it a different way, households were damaged attempting to have a middle class lifestyle!

This concern fascinated the writers. We can comprehend the young and careless declaring bankruptcy. We can also recognize a tale about seniors in debt that states decreasing health, limited revenue, no potential to make extra in the future and insufficient funds for retired life will certainly have financial issues. Nevertheless, in the case of seniors in debt, the reasons for their financial difficulties probably began a very long time ago. With restricted earnings and no financial savings to draw on, revealed the concerns which already existed.

Two income trap: The newer generation middle class

Insolvency stories about women and men working and raising children are normal today, but this was not so in the very early 1980s and earlier.

In those days, middle-class stories were not about creating debt to purchase consumable or lifestyle items they cannot afford. Stories about the current middle class in financial trouble inevitably show similar primary factors why these family members wind up bankrupt. They are attempting to spend on not only food and clothing but other costs that have become family fixed costs, such as:

Middle-class families need to have 2 automobiles when both mother and father are in the labour force. The spread of suburban life families have out of necessity opted to get more space for the dollar and overall affordability, also demands being a 2 car family. By the time they make all their fixed cost payments, those two income households think about what was supposed to be their financial success tale.

They have much less cash left over than their one-income dads’ or grandfathers’ households had. It appears that as our society modernizes and allows people to do a lot more, the ambitions of middle-class families do not always come to fruition. The middle class has been and continues to shift. The middle-class size has reduced compared to the 1970s. Families have been either moving up or down. On a net basis, the middle class has not been growing.

This actually does not amaze me. When you have children your expenditures jump astronomically. As lately as the very early 1970s, a Canadian household had buying power on one income. It certainly gave a middle-class way of living. What took place in the 1960s and 1970s, is one income sufficed to sustain a household in what was a typical and comfortable middle-class life.

It absolutely was middle class; it was right in the centre. You may have needed to clip coupons to save money, yet you were buying your food at grocery stores, not going to a food bank. Your home could have been small, yet it was your own and you had the want and ability to hive off savings from your regular employment income to pay off your only mortgage quicker.

Two income trap: So what has changed?

That generation recognized exactly how to stick to a spending plan. They were more successful than their parents’ generation. They learned lessons from their parents about: (i) money; (ii) budgeting; (iii) saving for an objective; and (iv) understanding and being OK with if you cannot pay cash now for something, you simply do not buy it.

Now with both parents in the labour force, expenditures for dining in a restaurant more often, more expensive clothing, gas for the two cars are instances of regular expenditures the modern family has. One or two generations ago families did not have the same level of those kinds of expenses. Modern families spend a lot more than simply for what was the core fundamentals. We constantly recognize that having children is costly. Yet something has taken place in a single generation. The expense of living for a family with kids has actually made what once was a common middle-class life out of reach for the ordinary typical income earner.

Nowadays, the level of a household’s fixed costs is not how an economist would look at costs as compared to the income level. Rather, it is how people today understand what a two income family’s costs realistically are at the same income level. In modern-day culture, people are dining in restaurants a lot more, have home appliances and communication devices that did not exist 1 or 2 generations earlier. Housing expenses have boosted considerably. This is the brand-new facts of life for the contemporary culture household.

Two income trap: So here is the key to release you from the trap

Canadians have a financial literacy problem. Lots of people assume that some are born rich while others are not. The fact is that in most cases, those that are well off simply have a much more reasonable understanding on costs and how to live within one’s means. They also have willpower. In the past, people thought first if they could actually afford something before they spent their money on it. They don’t just look at the interest rate and monthly payment incurring that new debt will have.

I have written several blog posts alerting Canadians about the need to budget and plan thoroughly to make sure that expenses do not surpass income. A spending plan requires to consist of savings; both for an emergency reserve and for retired life. Those that do not do so are more likely to be in financial trouble when an unforeseen occasion happens. It is because they have absolutely nothing to draw on in lean times.

There are many ways to start early in life to avoid financial disaster. If it sounds familiar, that’s due to the fact that they are. Nonetheless, yet few people value them. That’s partly due to the fact that they weren’t taught in either the home or in the schools.

Financial proficiency, like civics education and learning, requires to be a demand in all primary school, secondary school as well as university curricula.

So the key to being released from this trap is twofold:

  • behaviour modification; and
  • financial literacy being taught at all education levels

Two income trap: Are you caught in the two-income trap?

Are you caught in the two income trap? Worried that future interest rate hikes will make presently affordable debt entirely out of reach? Is the discomfort, stress, and anxiety too much debt brings on negatively affecting your health and wellness?

If so, call the Ira Smith Team today. We have decades and generations of experience helping people and companies needing financial restructuring. As a licensed insolvency trustee, we are the only professionals licensed and supervised by the Federal government to supply financial restructuring services.

Call the Ira Smith Team today to make sure that we can begin aiding you to return right into a healthy and balanced and well-balanced, worry-free life.

We will provide a no-cost consultation to aid you to resolve your money troubles. We understand the pain debts and financial distress triggers. We can end it from your life. This will certainly allow you to begin a clean slate, Starting Over Starting Now.

[monkeytools msnip=”http://monkeyplayr.com/playr.php?u=5173&p=20141″]

Call a Trustee Now!