This post is part 4 in our 7-part series on the Virginia Supreme Court’s ruling in Hunter v. Hunter (Record No. 190260). Today we focus on the opinion’s discussion of the “gift over” rule and how that rule relates to a no contest clause. You can find parts 1-3 of the series at the following links: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
The “gift over” rule relates to what type of language a no contest clause must contain in order to be legally effective. English and early American courts required that in order for a no contest clause to be effective, it must be accompanied by language providing that if a litigant is disinherited under a no contest clause, that litigant’s share must be distributed to some other person or persons. Hence the name “gift over.”
CONTINUE READING . . .
By recent 
For years, we’ve written on this blog about the dangers that increasingly-broadly-worded no contest clauses pose. The concern lies, in short, in the fact that unscrupulous fiduciaries could seek to hide behind a no contest clause in order to deter a will or trust beneficiary from holding the fiduciary accountable for misconduct. Conventionally, no contest clauses applied to challenges to the underlying validity of a will or trust itself. In the last decade or so, we’ve seen an explosion in no contest clauses that purport to be triggered by challenges to conduct by a fiduciary, or contests to instruments (such as beneficiary designations or right of survivorship designations) that are completely separate and apart from the instrument that contains the no contest clause. 
By recent unpublished 
As loyal readers of this blog know, our team has previously posted analyses of the fictional estates of the Star Wars universe (
In 
The Virginia Supreme Court recently handed down one of the most significant trust and estate litigation opinions in years. In the unanimous ruling in 
As we make our way into a new year, it’s a good time to ask what trends we’re likely to see in 2020 in the world of estate litigation. Three main trends stand out in my mind: litigation over increasingly broad no contest clauses, an increase in contested guardianship and conservatorship litigation, and the advent of litigation over electronic wills.
In the recent Fairfax Circuit Court decision of In re Connolly (Case No. CL-2018-0002347), the trial court had to decide the issue of whether a testator (will maker) may condition a bequest on a beneficiary’s obtaining a divorce from his current spouse. While a testator may write whatever she desires in her will or trust, courts, in some circumstances, have the authority to invalidate provisions as void against public policy. A court will generally not, on its own initiative, invalidate such provisions. Rather, an interested person may have standing to bring a suit to seek a declaratory judgment asking the court to invalidate the provision based on public policy reasons. 
Last month, the Virginia Supreme Court handed down a new ruling that confirms that circuit courts lack the authority to delegate final authority to approve accountings to the Commissioner of Accounts. While this ruling (in Moni Henderson v. Stephanie P. Cook, Trustee and Conservator for Thomas E. Noojin, Record No. 180772) doesn’t necessarily break new legal ground, it does provide a helpful overview of the law relating to the process by which the Commissioner of Accounts reviews accountings subject to the circuit court’s final review of the accountings. 
