Tangerine Bank keeping deceased clients money | Tangerine Bank | Discussion forum

Could that be, because the deceased did not keep records for each financial institution they dealt with? Ie. Copies or screen prints of all documentation showing the owner(s), benfiecaries, or successor. Would that not be the the job of the Executor of the will to advise the beneficiaries if they did not already know?

Infortunatley so many online FIs don't offer a detailed receipt of input and also rarely does a big bank give you a signed copy of similar transactions (a copy yes...but not signed).

Ps. My wife knows everything about our banking and knows where all the documentation is. And my children know they are beneficiaries to "some" of our investments if we both died.....but exactly what ones, they would not know till they went through the documentations. They were IDed to the FI by their SIN numbers.

In the case mentioned the executor seems to be too protective. When my Mom died the local credit union offered to copy the Will and certify more copies if we liked. I had already made notarized copies and gave them one. The only comment from the credit union was......if that is the case we will keep the copy....I said ok. Since you may only be an executor once in your life I was cautious to the point of NEVER letting the original copy put of the house.

AltaRed, exactly right. No-one but the executor has any call to make re disbursing assets of the estate, and it's that way for various obvious reasons. FIs are bound to follow the rules in order to safeguard the assets of the deceased and the estate, they are not to "make it up" as they go along depending on each individual situation. Often the folks who complain about the rigidity of these "rules" would be the first to complain if their own assets were not safeguarded or found their way into the wrong hands.
It's not usually an issue but what I would say is make sure you start by dealing with the appropriate level employee at the FI, i.e. in this case a person familiar with the process re estate asset disbursement. It can be frustrating to deal with Mom's favourite long-time teller-friend at the bank and then go back and forth a number of times with additional requests for documentation.

Agreed! Just providing the death certificate is not enough!
Years ago when my dad died, I was using Province of Ontario Savings (as did my father)(there's a throwback to the original low cost bank!!)(now Desjardins Credit--but they didn't keep the low fee approach of Prov of Ontario Savings). At that time, Prov of Ontario told me that they NEVER release funds without probate. However my ex, the tax lawyer, was able to get the funds released without probate. (at least he was good for something!)

The banks cannot release funds without being absolutely sure of who to release to--for obvious reasons! They must follow legal directives.

kanaka said

…. I did her last income tax and stuck a letter I it asking for the letter (forgot the name of it) saying she was fully paid up for taxes and would not be expected to pay any more. It is something to ask for but not every executor does. The letter never showed so I checked up on it and found I had to apply for it. I began to fill out the form and low and behold one arrived in the mail.

That letter sounds like the clearance certificate:

…. A clearance certificate certifies that all amounts for which the deceased is liable to us [the Canada Revenue Agency] have been paid, or that we have accepted security for the payment. If you do not get a clearance certificate, you can be liable for any amount the deceased owes. A clearance certificate covers all tax years to the date of death. …

BerylB said
Norman1,

Thanks for the input but did you read and understand what I had written? This is about Tangerine Bank not passing on money bequeathed to named beneficiaries even though it knows that its client is dead.

Look at, for example, item 13 "Death of Annuitant" under Section "G. Retirement Income Fund (RIF) Account".
https://www.tangerine.ca/en/legal/account-terms/index.html#rif
It says, "upon the Annuitant’s death, distribute the property of the RIF or an amount equal to the value of the RIF to the person(s) entitled thereto, upon receipt of satisfactory proof that the said person is the successor-annuitant or that the person is entitled to receive the proceeds of the RIF ...". Nowhere does it say that Tangerine will make any attempt to locate and contact the beneficiaries and tell them that they are beneficiaries, nor provide them with the appropriate paperwork to fill in. Tangerine is using this legal loophole to avoid disbursing funds to beneficiaries.

Tangerine's policy of not contacting the beneficiaries of deceased clients will only change if there is a rewrite of "Account Terms" to require Tangerine meets its deceased clients' wishes. Till then, conceivably, Tangerine can keep millions, if not billions, that is rightfully owed to beneficiaries. Still waiting for those claim forms which at present Tangerine isn't legally obliged to provide. (Tangerine is operating by legalities not ethics.)

Tangerine Bank is trying to avoid disbursing the deceased's money to people who are not entitled to it. If they do disburse, then they will have to disburse again when the persons legally entitled to the money come forward.

I think you are proceeding under the mistaken idea that the named beneficiaries in an account beneficiary designation are unconditionally entitled to what's in the account on death of the account holder. That's just not true.

The named beneficiaries' entitlement is conditional on

1. the final will not revoking the designation and
2. creditors, the deceased owes money to, not having any claim to what is in the account.

I don't think Tangerine Bank can tell who is really entitled to the money in question just from receiving the death certificate.

BerylB said

Where does it say that an Estate Executor or a will must be involved? From my initial phone conversation with the Estate Services representative, I got the distinct impression that Tangerine was not going to honour its commitment to my mother unless forced to. I played along to see if I was correct. I provided the death certificate. Tangerine should have acted to contact the beneficiaries, but didn't. Instead I got the, "I'll tell you who the beneficiaries are if you send me a copy of the will". I refused and told her I didn't need to know who the beneficiaries are. Just disburse the money to them as required by my mother.

Tangerine Bank, like any financial institution, is trying to honor your mother's last wishes. Her wishes could have changed since she signed that beneficiary designation. It is the last wishes that determine legal entitlement.

Executors and wills are involved because of provincial legislation. In BC, it is called the Wills, Estates and Succession Act. In Ontario, there are the Estates Act, Trustee Act, and Estates Administration Act. It is not just the Tangerine Bank's account terms and conditions that have effect.

BerylB said

Notice that Tangerine wasn't asking me to prove that I was Estate Executor because that isn't required by its own legal requirements. Rather they were trying to determine if I had the legal authority to make them disburse the funds to the beneficiaries. I decided not to pull rank in order to see how Tangerine would behave. Furthermore, I know one does not have to turn over the whole will in order to prove one is the Estate Executor. They were being deceitful as they were also when it was suggested that I needed to close the joint account.

That legal authority to order disbursement only comes from the executor. Acting on instructions from the executor, legally empowered by a probated will, gives legal protection to Tangerine against future claims. My understanding is that Tangerine has no further liability when it does so, even should the probated will be successfully overturned later.

In Ontario, such protection comes from the section 47 of Trustee Act:

Revocation of erroneous grant
Validity of prior acts

47. (1) Where a court of competent jurisdiction has admitted a will to probate, or has appointed an administrator, even though the grant of probate or the appointment may be subsequently revoked as having been erroneously made, all acts done under the authority of the probate or appointment, including all payments made in good faith to or by the personal representative, are as valid and effectual as if the same had been rightly granted or made, but upon revocation of the probate or appointment, in cases of an erroneous presumption of death, the supposed decedent, and in other cases the new personal representative may, subject to subsections (2) and (3), recover from the person who acted under the revoked grant or appointment any part of the estate remaining in the person’s hands undistributed and, subject to the Limitations Act, 2002, from any person who erroneously received any part of the estate as a devisee, legatee or one of the next of kin, or as a spouse of the decedent or supposed decedent, the part so received or the value thereof. R.S.O. 1990, c. T.23, s. 47 (1); 2002, c. 24, Sched. B, s. 47; 2005, c. 5, s. 71 (1).

I think that's what Tangerine seeks. They would like to pay what they owe your mother once and only once. They don't want to be standing where TD Bank once stood, according to the Law Commission of Ontario in V. The Option of Administering Small Estates Without Probate:

This risk was realized in the Court of Appeal decision in Monteiro v. Toronto Dominion Bank.[198] A Kuwaiti family was in litigation over the validity of the mother’s will which had left all her assets to her daughter. Before the will challenge had been settled, and contrary to its own internal procedures, Toronto Dominion Bank released the mother’s assets to her sons. Once the will was ultimately determined to be valid, TD was held to be liable to the daughter for the missing assets. As the Court reasoned,

…[T]he situation TD finds itself in is the product of it having ignored its own internal procedures and thereby having paid the wrong party. In that regard, TD was the author of its own misfortune. Its internal procedures were designed to prevent this exact situation from occurring, but having chosen to ignore these procedures, TD now finds itself liable to [Daughter] for the funds in the account. I see no injustice in this result.[199]

As others have stated, nothing gets paid to beneficiaries until the estate Executor provides specific direction to the FI to do so, including how much to pay out. And the Executor takes personal risk providing direction on payouts if not enough has been held back to pay all creditors, including the CRA. Really until a Clearance Certificate is obtained from the CRA, the Executor remains personally on the hook to cover any shortfalls from the Estate.

What sometimes happens in estates with an abundance of assets, is that partial disbursements are made to beneficiaries and heirs pending settlement of all outstanding debts including income taxes. It can take a year or more to get a CRA Clearance Certificate.

I think the executor is personally on the hook to creditors, up to the original assets of the estate.

If there was assets originally in the estate to pay creditors, including CRA, 75¢ of each $1 owed, then each creditor is entitled to 75% of their claim and beneficiaries will get nothing.

Should the executor disburse to the beneficiaries and leave only enough to pay each creditor 60% of their claim, then the executor is personally liable for the resulting 15% shortfall.