By recent opinion in the matter of Sandra Flora Snead Larsen v. Pamela Larsen Stack, et al., the Virginia Supreme Court upheld a Trial Court’s decision relating to ambiguous provisions in a will relating to purported life estates. The opinion provides an instructive analysis and look at the legal principles relating to a somewhat common estate dispute scenario.
The facts of the case were that the Testator’s (will maker) will (“Will”) divided his estate between his wife (“Wife”), two children (“Children”), and grandchildren. At issue was a certain provision of his Will that left certain real property (the “Cell Tower Property”) to his Children, “subject to [his] wife . . . having the right to reside in [the] home . . . for so long as she is physically and mentally able to do so . . . .” Such provision also provided that his Wife would receive rental payments pursuant to a cellular tower agreement “for as long as she resides in our home . . . .”
CONTINUE READING . . .
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By recent unpublished 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. 
Technology, particularly relating to communication, is ubiquitous and ever-expanding in scope and ability. From text messaging to social media, there are seemingly more ways to communicate now than ever before.
