Motus has launched | Page 6 | motusbank | Discussion forum

Briguy said
If that logic is correct, there'd be no difference having your RRSP's and RRIF's with Motus Bank vs Motive Financial in terms of difficulty for your heirs if you die since both are federal banks and you can't walk into either one.  

Yeah, my question was more directed to Loonie, to see whether whether he looks at where the financial institution's head office is or branches are located.

That's good to know Hubert will accept out of province probate. Do you happen to have a link to that thread, or a copy of the correspondence you can share?

Much like Norman1 disagrees with Loonie with respect to the advantages of RRSPs and RRIFs (I'm inclined to side with Loonie on that one), I do disagree that province of a financial institution's head office even matters in terms of probate. Now, if the executor dies before an estate is settled, or predeceases the deceased, that can complicate matters and may require multiple court appointments. However, for a straight will, I'm of the view that another province's court will honour grant of probate from another province's court.

Cheers,
Doug

Thanks, Briguy. 🙂

Cheers,
Doug

Here is what I can say about the issues on the table.

Wills and estates are a provincial matter, so I don't think the fact that banks are federally regulated has anything to do with them.

The question about banks that have their HQ in one province but branches in another has not emerged for me, so I have not had to deal with it. It seems hypothetical to me as I can't think of any that have branches in Ontario but are based somewhere else except perhaps a BigBank like maybe BMO or National, which I think but am not certain, are based in Quebec. In those two cases, I would have no problem dealing with them because I know they are set up to deal with Ontario law, but I wouldn't keep much money with them for other reasons.

The issue is not just probate. It is powers of attorney too. Responses previously obtained and posted on this forum from some of the alternative FIs on this question have not always been as positive or sometimes not even as clear at the one about probate from Hubert.
And of course there is always the possibility that they will change their policies or that their provincial regulations will change at some point in the future when you may not be aware of it or able to update your directives or move your money. In general, the progression of financial regulation seems to be becoming more restrictive, not less.

Loonie said
Here is what I can say about the issues on the table.

Wills and estates are a provincial matter, so I don't think the fact that banks are federally regulated has anything to do with them.

Yes, that's true, but it's also, I think, unreasonable to expect a will be probated in a jurisdiction (within the same country!) in each province whereby that individual held accounts. I think there's some sort of inter-provincial, pan-Canadian agreement among the provinces to honour wills. I would also submit that when you have a Power of Attorney drawn up in one province (PoAs are also a provincial matter), the banks will accept that PoA. They may require a notarized copy, but they'll accept a notarized copy from any province's registered notary public or lawyer. 🙂

The question about banks that have their HQ in one province but branches in another has not emerged for me, so I have not had to deal with it. It seems hypothetical to me as I can't think of any that have branches in Ontario but are based somewhere else except perhaps a BigBank like maybe BMO or National, which I think but am not certain, are based in Quebec. In those two cases, I would have no problem dealing with them because I know they are set up to deal with Ontario law, but I wouldn't keep much money with them for other reasons.

Yeah, but I (and I suspect Briguy and others) think you might be worrying a bit unnecessarily. Think of my Power of Attorney example mentioned above. If banks required a will probated by a court in the province of their head office, then their policies should/would require that a PoA be notarized by a lawyer or notary public registered in their home province. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare! 🙁

The issue is not just probate. It is powers of attorney too. Responses previously obtained and posted on this forum from some of the alternative FIs on this question have not always been as positive or sometimes not even as clear at the one about probate from Hubert.
And of course there is always the possibility that they will change their policies or that their provincial regulations will change at some point in the future when you may not be aware of it or able to update your directives or move your money. In general, the progression of financial regulation seems to be becoming more restrictive, not less.  

See my example(s) above and tell me if you've changed your view. I think I am right in this case.

In terms of Hubert, Achieva, et al., not accepting Power of Attorneys, that has nothing to do with provincial jurisdiction. They've just made it a matter of their internal company policy not to accept Power of Attorneys, which they're free to do. I suspect they wouldn't even accept a Manitoba PoA from a Hubert member in Manitoba - it's likely more a matter of a procedural/technological reason in their banking system not being set up to handle it. I do suspect if you were a PoA, out of province, for a Manitoba resident who banked with the Teulon branch of Sunova Credit Union and went in-person with your Manitoba resident friend/family member, they'd be able to set you up with a PoA. In sum, I think it's a very specific case with respect to virtual banking FIs.

Cheers,
Doug

Briguy said
I think in reality if you have tangible assets like a house or business in multiple provinces you are probably going to require them to be probated in each province that they are located. I doubt you will have this requirement for a RRSP or non registered bank account like Doug said. I wonder if it would work to have multiple wills, one for each province that you have a tangible asset in, and just probate that specific will in that province. This is assuming you are wealthy with multiple dwellings and businesses.  

Point of clarity: RRSP, RRIF, and TFSA assets where a beneficiary or successor is designated do not involve probate at all. They are considered to be outside of the person's estate.

Also, Loonie you wondered about making accounts joint to avoid probate. Indeed, you can do this (and many people do). It's a good strategy (need to make sure they're joint with right of survivorship, not joint tenant-in-common, although the latter is less common for bank accounts) in that you can add one or more children to your joint accounts (some banks, like HSBC, don't let you add people to existing accounts and require you to open up brand new accounts when the beneficial ownership is changing) without any income tax implications. The only caveats I'd add to this strategy is that (a) you have to trust your child or children explicitly to disburse the assets in accordance with your wishes and (b) because income tax attribution rules are such that you really should be splitting who reports interest income and capital gains, any children on your accounts should be splitting that interest income with you so as not to run afoul of income tax rules.

You can also make all the bank and investment accounts joint with one or more children that you want your children to ultimately inherit, and then keep a portion of your and your wife's non-registered assets in your own names, individually, so that you could, say, specify any charities you want to inherit some of your wealth. This would be a sound strategy, I think, in that it would also minimize the size of your estate that needs to be probated and thus your probate fees.

Cheers,
Doug

Briguy said
Making a spouse joint on accounts and named beneficiary on registered accounts is good, but doing that with children is more complicated.

From what I understand, making a child joint on the non registered account won't mean anything after death unless you sign a "written declaration of gift" that indicates you intend it to be a gift under joint tenancy.

That's definitely not my understanding. I believe a written declaration of gift, as you put it, has more to do with down payments for mortgages for children, to cover the bank's butt from a credit adjudication perspective knowing that it's not a loan that needs to be repaid. When I worked with HSBC, where the child held accounts with the deceased, we were legally obligated to not include those joint account balances for the purposes of determining the person's estate value. HSBC still put blocks on deceased joint accounts, so as to require a supervisor override and to manually approve or reject cheques/EFT debits in the deceased's name, but if the joint account holder came in to the branch and wanted to open a sole bank account and transfer some or full of the joint account balance, we legally had to honour their request.

Making one child named beneficiary on a registered account such as RRSP,TFSA, RRIF or life insurance policy will mean the child will get 100% of the money , whereas the estate will pay up to 50% of the RRSP and RRIF as taxes, which can end up with other beneficiaries suing since that will affect their share.

Just because there's only one blank line on a beneficiary designation form doesn't mean you're limited to a single beneficiary. You can print multiple beneficiaries' names and state their shares. Alternatively, you could write "see attached schedule" and provide the bank or credit union with an attached beneficiary designation schedule.

Also,if your child gets divorced and they are joint on your accounts, then their ex spouse can get some of your inheritance.

I'm not a lawyer, so just going by what I've read.  

Yes, the latter concern would be the biggest concern with making accounts joint. Personally, if I were my parents, I'd put me on their joint accounts because I'd trust me explicitly and know that my son was going to remain single for the rest of his natural life, to ensure that I ultimately divide 50% of their assets after both of them had died with my sister, net of any requested disbursements to charities, of course.

Like I said, you really have to trust your kids. If there's any hint of potential problems, not even just lack of trust but you don't completely trust their spouse(s), then I wouldn't do it. Or, alternatively, put different kids on different accounts, each representing all or part of their share. This would require you not move assets around every year, though! If any kid had an untrustworthy spouse, then you'd leave their share in your sole accounts.

Cheers,
Doug

Briguy said
Your parents shouldn't put you as joint on their accounts if they're both still alive. That's like saying they should give you all their money and you can dole it out to them as they need it LOL  

LOL, well, it was just an example to illustrate my point. I'm not sure they actually would, but I would just add, to further my point, that it wouldn't be like you suggest. I would be on the accounts in name only. They'd be free to operate the accounts as they please. The only difference is when they both pass away, we'd avoid probate on those assets held jointly. I'd be able to view their accounts online, yes, but in terms of using them, I wouldn't without explicit instruction from them.

Cheers,
Doug

Loonie said
That wouldn't prevent someone from suing the pants off you and then taking your parents' money because it's in your name. Parents should never agree to this unless at death's door, and,even then, only when only one parent is living. Just pay the probate tax when the time comes and be done with it.

My mom is getting close to 100 and in pretty good health, still lives alone in her own house, but I would never suggest she do this, even though I am her only heir and only close relative.  

That's true, but why would someone sue me? That is a good reason for not having joint accounts, but a lot of people do this. I would wager that greater than 50% of people do this (that is, put a child on an account where only one surviving spouse remains). It was common at HSBC and it was especially a pain in the butt since brand new accounts had to be opened. 🙁

Wow...that's awesome your mom is still alive. I know you mentioned recently your father's passing a few years ago, so I didn't realize your mom was still alive and well. You seem pretty cautious in terms of the relationships you develop, Loonie. The risk of someone suing you seems very low. I'm surprised you wouldn't want to do that, actually, to minimize or eliminate probate fees and hassle.

Cheers,
Doug

Loonie said
I like to keep the lines clean. The rate she's going, she could outlive me! LOL

I'd hate to see your mom outlive you, but she may. Sounds like she's got her mind and her body. And, if she does, good for her, too. Although, I'm sure she probably wouldn't like to outlive you. It's never ideal to outlive your children.

Something that one has to contend with in dealing with elderly parents is the possibility of memory loss, paranoia, dementia. These are frighteningly common. I don't want to allow any unnecessary room for accusations. Nor do I want to rankle her by suggesting joint accounts. She guards her independence fiercely. I feel better if I am not tangled up in her money and would be reluctant to have a joint account even if she asked for it.

Agreed, and that's why I'd never suggest it to my parents. I'd only agree to it, if they asked me. To ask, or request, it would be seen as taking away their independence. And, they're not that old, really. They will only be 63 this year!

There is no law that prevents anyone from suing anyone (as an individual). It can be for something quite simple. I know these don't all apply to you but here are examples that comes to mind. Say you went on a last minute winter getaway for a week and didn't arrange for someone to shovel your snow and clear your walk. Someone slips and falls and is badly injured... Or you missed renewing your car insurance by a day or two and then got involved in a major accident... Or your partner defaults on credit card debt and you are held responsible and the bank dips into your account to pay it off... I'm sure there are many more examples.  

That's true, but in those slip and fall injuries, doesn't homeowners' liability policy usually cover this? I think my parents' homeowner policy has $2, or $3, million in liability on it.

Cheers,
Doug

Doug said
Thanks for the follow-up, Briguy. I wouldn't worry just yet - that's a normal turnaround time for the receiving institution to post the CR or DR on the next business day. Hubert would've sent out the DR request to Meridian in their 7:30 am Pacific (10:30 am Eastern) EFT batch this morning. If Meridian has a normalized (and automatic) EFT posting schedule, the DR should show up on your Meridian account by tomorrow morning, ideally, or, worse case, tomorrow night (end of business day). If Meridian takes until Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday, then the earlier posters to this forum were correct and, indeed, Meridian has antiquated processes in play. (That would also be a dealbreaker for me in terms of choosing, potentially, Motus Bank and I'd be much more inclined to switch to Motive Financial.)

Cheers,
Doug  

I just checked my Meridian account at 7 am this Tuesday morning. The 0.32 was gone. So seems like an electronic automated PAD as I originally pulled 0.32 from Meridian at 5:30 pm Friday night.

I guess this means you can't do PAD and bill pay from the HISA at Motus, you need to do it from chequing ??