9

This answer says funeral expenses can be paid out of the decedent's assets before probate is granted. The other answer suggests that a "celebration of life party" is not included among things that can be paid for in that way. A comment in that thread says "celebration of life" is another term for funeral. But it can be an informal social gathering of relatives and friends of the decedent, focusing on remembering him.

Does this kind of law make it any clearer than that what counts as a "funeral"?

3
  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. Commented yesterday
  • How many funerals can be given and costed to the estate before the funeral is completed - presuming the 'funeral' is a process, or must it be a singular event? Commented yesterday
  • @civitas, please ask as a separate question, or ask in the chat linked above. Commented 7 hours ago

3 Answers 3

12

There is nothing special about the funeral per se compared to other ordinary costs of dealing with death. Courts will assess what was a reasonable expense in the circumstances, considering the magnitude of the estate. A wake or celebration of life or other kind of reception may very well be a reasonable charge to the estate.

E.g. the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court) recently observed in one estate claim:

The claim was in respect to unremarkable expenses (funeral, reception, credit card, and real property utility bills) is facially reasonable and ordinary amounts.

And in another case:

Last, I am satisfied that the purchases made at Food Basics ($113.40), Costco ($387.40) and Dollarama ($13.05) on December 16, 2019, the day of the celebration of life, were likely purchases made for that reception and served the legitimate interests of the estate. I do not accept that the other purchases made on this day related to the reception. The purchase at Esso ($92.56) was likely for the benefit of the respondent and the purchase at the Beer Store ($36.95) is in an amount that suggests mere personal use, not for use at the reception

3
  • 6
    +1 I'm very impressed that you were able to find case law on point. I've practiced probate law for decades (I recently left it and have a holiday today) and I don't think I've ever seen a court order addressing the issue on way or the other. Commented yesterday
  • 2
    There seems to be a typo in the first quote (in the source, not your quoting): “is” should be “in” for the sentence to make sense. Commented yesterday
  • 19
    I love the end of that second example: it suggests that if only the respondent had bought more beer, they’d have been allowed to account it to the estate. Commented yesterday
7

Assuming the estate is solvent, then reasonable funeral expenses are allowed "according to the deceased's condition in life". There is no rule of law which specifies exactly what is allowed and what is not - it is for the judge as the trier of fact (if the matter should come to court for any reason) to decide in the individual case.

Williams, Mortimer and Sunnucks (22nd Edition) comments that:

38-15 The question is one of fact. Thus, the cost of a tombstone was allowed... in one case but not in another. The cost of mourning was allowed in one case but not in another. The cost of reinterment in order to fulfil the last wishes of the deceased has been allowed in Canada. A payment of £93 odd for mourning rings distributed among relations and friends of the deceased was allowed by Lord Eldon where the will gave no directions, but committed “anything not specified” to the discretion of the executors. In a case decided in 1691 the sum of £600 was allowed on the funeral in his own country of a wealthy local celebrity.

Regarding the last case, the case report from 1691 states:

There had been £600 laid out in Mr. Offley's funeral, which the court decreed should be a debt to effect the trust estate, Mr. Offley being a man of a great estate and reputation in his country, and being buried there ; but if he had been buried elsewhere, it seemed his funeral might have been more private, and the court would not have allowed so much.

£600 in 1691 would be worth approximately £130,000 today but he was a man of great estate and reputation in is own country, we are told.

3
  • What is “the cost of mourning”? Where I come from, you can mourn whomever you want for as long as you want without incurring any costs at all… Commented yesterday
  • 3
    @JanusBahsJacquet In this context, "mourning" is the clothes for mourning. Typically black, unadorned, and all that. Commented yesterday
  • According to nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter £600 in 1690 had the same value as roughly £72,000 had in 2017, so the result must be heavily dependent on the methodology (which makes sense, because the relative value of various goods has also changed drastically over the centuries). Commented 20 hours ago
3

A funeral is the disposal of the body

Usually a burial or cremation but other more niche options exist. It usually includes a funeral service, religious or secular. In some circumstances, such as where there is no body, a memorial service may be held instead.

The costs of the funeral would include payment to the undertaker, the florist/decorator and celebrant, and the purchase of the plot, crypt, or other resting place.

The funeral does not include the “after party”, commonly known as the wake. Expenses for that are not legally payable by the estate, even though they commonly are.

Of course, none of this matters unless someone takes issue and goes to court. And this is extremely unlikely: funerals are expensive, wakes are cheap. Nobody is going to court over this.

3
  • 8
    What jurisdiction defines “funeral” precisely and strictly in this fashion? Can you back that claim up? Commented yesterday
  • 4
    "funerals are expensive, wakes are cheap." That depends on a lot of different things... Commented yesterday
  • 2
    The statement "expenses for that are not legally payable by the estate" also calls for some support. Where is this principle expressed in NSW law? The qualification "even though they commonly are" also deserves more attention: is this not an abuse of the legal provisions? Why does the probate system tolerate it? Or is the "common" practice only found in cases where nobody challenges the disposition of the assets, or where the estates debts can be settled in full, or under other circumstances? Commented 20 hours ago

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.