Inheritance hinges on dead couple’s marital status

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia will hear a bid to overturn a lower court’s ruling that a marriage-like relationship existed between a couple, both now deceased, with the fate of a $3-million estate hanging in the balance.

Last December, the Supreme Court of B.C. was asked to rule whether the pair — Sharon Clark and Dikran Matheos Matossian — were in a relationship that amounted to marriage, a decision central to determining what would happen with Clark’s estate.

After she died without a will in 2020, Matossian sued Clark’s brother, the administrator of her estate, claiming he was entitled to inherit her assets on the basis that he was legally her spouse.

Matossian also died in late 2022 before the court could hold a hearing on the issue, and the claim was taken up by the executor of Matossian’s estate — leaving the court to decide whether they were spouses without direct testimony from either person, and amid considerable uncertainty.

According to the court, the pair met at a tennis club in 1982 and had a relationship that lasted until Clark died — yet there was a dispute about whether their relationship amounted to a marriage.

If their relationship was deemed not to be a marriage, Clark’s $3.1-million estate would go to her brother. If it was considered a marriage, her estate would go to Matossian’s estate to be distributed to his heirs, including his three nieces, a nephew and his executor, Marcus von Albrecht. The pair met von Albrecht at the same tennis club where their relationship started, when he became executive chef there in 2001.

“While the relationship between Ms. Clark and Mr. Matossian lasted 38 years, compared to most marriage-like relationships it was at least unconventional,” the court said. “They did not raise a family together. They did not share the same residence. Each of them was financially self-sufficient. They maintained no joint bank accounts, owned no joint assets and did not name each other as beneficiaries on their investments.”

Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that they were in a marriage-like relationship — and so, Matossian’s estate would be entitled to her assets.

Clark’s brother is now appealing that ruling.

The appeal court noted that the challenge will be to “identify an extricable error of law or an overriding and palpable error of fact.”

And while an earlier ruling indicated it will be tough to succeed on appeal, “given the heavily factual nature of the trial judge’s analysis,” the court concluded the appeal can go ahead.

“The argument is that the trial judge identified the parties’ intentions as a key consideration in determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists but focused his analysis on Mr. Matossian’s intentions, not Ms. Clark’s. The appellant submits that there was evidence of Ms. Clark’s intentions inconsistent with an intention, on her part, to engage in a marriage-like relation, but the judge overlooked or gave it no weight,” the court noted.

Ahead of the appeal hearing, von Albrecht asked the court to order Clark’s brother to post $108,000 in security for potential trial costs.

The court denied that request.

“Taking everything into account, I am unpersuaded that security for costs is required in the interests of justice. There is at least some merit to the appeal,” it said. “There is nothing exceptional about this appeal to make it appropriate that security for trial costs be ordered before the costs are assessed.”