When Property Soars in Value, How Do Courts Interpret Your Will?

When a person leaves a home to a spouse with instructions that children inherit their share after the spouse passes away, which value should apply? The value at the time of the first owner’s death — say $50,000 — or the much higher value decades later, perhaps $1.2 million?

That was the question before the B.C. Court of Appeal in a case involving the will of Diane Brink, who died in 1984.

Shortly before her death, Brink added a clause to her will that allowed her husband to remain in the family home until he either died or sold it. At that point, her children from a previous relationship would inherit her half of the property.

The dispute was whether “her half” referred to the home’s 1984 value — then about $50,000 with a $22,000 mortgage — or its market value decades later, when Brink’s husband died in 2021 and the home was worth roughly $1.2 million mortgage-free. In practical terms, her children stood to inherit either $600,000 or just $14,000.

This case highlighted the significance of effective estate planning. For further insights on related subjects, explore my articles on How to Navigate the Transfer of Your Parents' Home After Their Passing and The Unseen Consequences of Not Having a Will. Now, returning to the case.

Lower Court Decision

The B.C. Supreme Court decided in 2022 that the children were entitled only to the 1984 valuation of their mother’s share.

The Appeal

Brink’s children appealed, arguing that the trial judge misread the will, relied on evidence not before the court (such as potential capital gains tax), and failed to interpret the clause in its proper context.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that the trial judge erred in considering capital gains implications, but concluded that this mistake did not affect the outcome. The will’s wording, it said, clearly pointed to a valuation at the time of Brink’s death.

Court’s Reasoning

The appellate judges recognized that Brink’s children believed their mother would not have intended them to wait decades only to receive such a modest sum. Still, the court emphasized that wills must be read according to the intentions of the person who drafted them, not adjusted later to achieve fairness.

“When Diane Brink made her will in 1984, she could not have foreseen either the dramatic increase in housing prices or that her husband would continue living in the home for nearly four decades,” the court explained. “Had she known, she might have written her will differently. But it is not the role of the courts to rewrite a will after the fact.”

Final Outcome

The Court of Appeal dismissed the children’s appeal and confirmed that Brink’s half of the property should be valued at 1984 levels.

Although the result may feel inequitable today, the ruling underscores a fundamental principle of estate law: courts interpret wills based on the testator’s intentions at the time they were made — not on what might seem fair years later.

Disclaimer: The content of this article is intended for educational purposes only. It does not create a lawyer-client relationship. It does not constitute legal advice. For your specific circumstances, please seek counsel from a qualified legal professional.