‘Dubious and unreliable’: BC care aid who married client withdrew $80,000 just before he died

A BC woman who married a struggling widower she’d been hired to care for, and then withdrew tens of thousands of dollars shortly before he died, has failed in her attempt to hang onto his Tesla.

Gloria Peter said her late husband gave her the car as a birthday and Christmas gift, but there was no signed agreement, and after he died, the vehicle became part of his estate, which all went to his children.

According to a recently published March 7 BC Supreme Court decision, 55-year-old Gloria Peter, who was also known as Gloria Rabuya and Gloria Burr, met 75-year-old Ingo Peter when she was hired by his family after his wife died.

The decision said his wife passed away shortly after he retired, and he began to struggle with alcoholism.

To help their father, the children found a senior care and companionship service run by Gloria in the Lower Mainland.

Soon after the family retained Gloria, the two got married. The marriage lasted about two years, and when Ingo died, he left his estate to his children and nothing to Gloria.

While the two were married, they bought a $250,000 rental property in her name, which he financed. She makes rental income from the property, which is now disputed in the will, and Gloria continues to live in the matrimonial home rent free.

The decision said “expensive appliances” have been replaced in the home, and a sentimental table put in storage.

In the months before he died, Gloria removed $75,000 from their joint account, including $14,000 on the day he died.

“(She) says this was for a specialized bed, but the evidence indicates the bed should have only cost $500,” the decision read. “There are no receipts for the purchase.”

“Significant” payments were also made to Gloria’s family in the Philippines during their marriage.

Ingo’s children disputed the transfer of the rental property to Gloria and the validity of her marriage, while she countered with a claim to vary the will.

Justice Thomas said he had “serious concerns” about Gloria’s financial disclosure, calling it “dubious and unreliable.”

She said she was making $8,000 a month before her husband’s death, but now she’s making $1,000 and is broke.

However, she refused to disclose her assets, saying they were not relevant.

“I find her affidavit evidence with respect to her finances and explanation for financial matters internally inconsistent and intentionally vague,” the Justice said.

While a decision about the estate has not yet been made, there is a current dispute over the Tesla.

The children said the car is part of the estate, and if she wanted to use it before the estate was finalized, she had to file for an injunction in court.

Gloria said she sold her Cadillac when she received the car as a gift, and gave her late husband $4,000, although she provided no financial proof to the court.

She argued she can’t afford to insure the Tesla, so the estate should pay the insurance and let her drive it.

“I have significant concerns about her refusal to provide complete financial information on the basis of relevance and then claim a lack of an ability to purchase a replacement car,” the Justice said.

Gloria also said she hadn’t been driving the car for privacy reasons, because the children, who are the owners, can find out where she has been going from the vehicle’s GPS data. She gave no explanation why she didn’t want them to know.

Ultimately, the Justice ordered that Gloria should leave the house by May 1 and denied her use of the Tesla.

The rest of the estate will be decided in the future.