Back in June of this year, the Virginia Supreme Court handed down a ruling in an estate dispute case that, while it didn’t particularly break new legal ground, provides a helpful overview of the current state of Virginia law regarding Virginia’s Slayer Statute as well as claims contesting a deed of gift on the basis of undue influence.
In Gelber v. Glock, 293 Va. 497 (2017), the Virginia Supreme Court reviewed rulings of the trial court in a case involving allegations by several of the decedent’s children that, among other things, their sister wrongfully induced their mother to execute a deed of gift and bill of sale through undue influence and fraud. At trial, the trial court had excluded certain statements by the decedent as hearsay, and further struck the plaintiffs’ evidence as to their claim of undue influence. On appeal, the Virginia Supreme Court reversed the trial court on both issues.
Hearsay / Dead Man’s Statute
At trial, the plaintiffs sought to introduce into evidence statements made by the decedent whereby she disavowed the deed of gift that she had previously executed. The trial court held that those statements were inadmissible, apparently reasoning that the Dead Man’s statute is not available as a hearsay exception for statements by the decedent that were not made contemporaneously with the execution of the deed of gift. In general, the Dead Man’s statute prohibits someone from receiving a judgment based solely on his own testimony that a deceased person said something. Instead, there must be corroborating evidence to support it. There is a lengthy series of cases about how strong the corroborating evidence must be, and from whom it may and may not come.
CONTINUE READING . . .
The legal landscape in Virginia regarding claims for legal malpractice against estate planning attorneys changed significantly this past year when the Virginia General Assembly adopted legislation to address the issues raised in the Virginia Supreme Court’s Thorsen decision. This blog post discusses some implications of, and observations about, the new legislation, which was adopted as 
The vexatious litigant is a problem that civil litigation attorneys very likely encounter at least once during their careers. It is a well-accepted precept that courts exist, in part, for citizens to seek redress for their claimed civil wrongs. But can a person abuse the privilege? The Supreme Court of Virginia held that a person can indeed abuse that privilege, in its June 8, 2017 opinion in 
On May 15, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in 
As trust decanting becomes increasingly popular, we can expect to see more disputes and litigation regarding trust decanting. This blog post examines some of the main issues that will likely arise in those disputes.
How can a person remove a trustee of a trust? Depending on the language of the trust, there could be several ways. This blog post summarizes some of the options, and provides an overview of things to consider when a person wants to remove a trustee.
Back in the summer I wrote a 
The vast majority of people have no idea that Virginia law recognizes oral contracts to make a will. As a result, people often miss out on asserting a claim to an inheritance because they didn’t know that they had one to begin with. This blog post provides an overview of Virginia law on this issue. I’ll follow-up this blog post with another one in the coming weeks about practical tips for how people can optimize their chances of winning on a claim for an oral contract to make a will.
There are a handful of states that allow a person to probate a will (and challengers to contest the validity of a will) before the testator (the person enacting the will) dies. In recent years, there has been a trend to expand the practice to more states. I had an interesting discussion about this issue at the recent 
