Why let the ungraspable be seized?
When bequeathing assets, one wants them to be protected from the heirs' creditors.
One year after their marriage, a man transfers ownership of a cottage to his wife. Obviously, growing more in love, he subsequently transfers to her the family home that had been bequeathed to him by his mother under an inalienability condition. The day after the transfer deed is signed, the wife files for divorce and serves notice to the spouse. Ten days after the notice, the Court grants the divorce and approves the ancillary measures agreement signed by the parties. This agreement stipulates that the wife will pay, among other things, the sum of $65,000 to the spouse, which represents the spouse's share in the family home. Following the latter's subsequent bankruptcy, the trustee requests the cancellation of the transaction.
Although the spouse claims to have received the sum of $65,000 in cash and lost it gambling, the Court of Appeal* concludes that the transaction is not revisable, even though it believes that the wife did not make any payment other than a sum of $1 to the spouse. The mention that the home was bequeathed under an inalienability condition allows for the exclusion of the bequeathed property from the bankrupt's assets attributed to their creditors.
Every parent wants to protect their children throughout their life. Why not subscribe to a guarantee that extends beyond one's life by including an inalienability clause in their will?
* C.A. 500-09-004938-973, 1998-11-17
