A B.C. widow doesn’t have to pay the Royal Bank of Canada the $51,764 balance her late husband left on his credit card bill, a B.C. Supreme Court judge has ruled.
In a June 3 decision, Justice Lindsay Lyster said Carol Smith was not liable for the debt accumulated on a Visa where her husband Alfred Smith was the primary cardholder.
Smith passed away on June 10, 2019.
Bank collections associate Londa Larmond said Smith applied for the credit card on Feb. 14, 2001 and Carol Smith was approved as a co-applicant.
Lyster said there was no documentary evidence to substantiate precisely when the credit card was applied for or who applied for it.
“In particular, the application for the credit card is not in evidence,” Lyster said. “Nor is any document relating to the approval of Mr. Smith as primary cardholder or the defendant as co-applicant in evidence.”
Carol Smith, now 74, said she never applied for a Royal Bank credit card and never agreed to any of the terms in the cardholder’s agreement. She said she rarely ever used her card, but when she did it was on the belief that she was an authorized user on her husband’s credit card and he was solely responsible for all balances, Lyster said.
And, while the card limit was raised several times, Carol Smith said she was never contacted about nor authorized or agreed to any limit increase.
“Larmond says that the credit limit would not be increased without someone agreeing to the increase, so Mr. Smith must have done so,” said the ruling.
Larmond said that, after the various increases to the limit, Carol Smith used her card.
Lyster said the card was usually paid the monthly balance in full but that began to change in 2016.
“Mr. Smith’s health was declining throughout this period,” Lyster said. “Mrs. Smith says he was diagnosed with emphysema and COPD, and he subsequently had a double lung transplant on Jan. 4, 2018. The Jan. 25 to Feb. 26, 2018 statement appears to indicate that Mr. Smith was using the card, including at Vancouver General Hospital in Vancouver.”
The bank submitted that it had an enforceable agreement with the Smiths that Carol Smith breached by failing to pay the balance and accrued interest owing on the credit card.
Lyster said the bank failed to produce the card application and was unable to explain why it couldn’t. The bank also failed to prove that neither of the Smiths gave express consent to the credit limit being increased, noted the ruling.
“The bank has failed to establish that Mrs. Smith was a co-applicant for the card,” the judge said. “As a result, she is not liable under the terms of the cardholder’s agreement for the balance and accrued interest owing on the card.”
