Estate Litigation Predictions for 2020

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.

Litigation Over Increasingly Broad No Contest Clauses

I predict that in 2020, we’ll see increased litigation over the scope and enforceability of no contest clauses, also referred to as in terrorem clauses. In short, no contest clauses are provisions contained in wills or trusts that provide that if a litigant commits conduct that falls within the scope of the clause, he is prohibited from inheriting via the will or trust. The conventional no contest clause sought to penalize contests to the validity of wills or trusts. If the contest was successful, then the will or trust was declared invalid, thereby eliminating the enforceability of the no contest clause contained within the will or trust. But if the contest failed, the unsuccessful litigant would forfeit any inheritance he may have otherwise stood to receive under the will or trust (except if certain conditions applied, such as the doctrine of good faith and probable cause). In short, no contest clauses traditionally applied just to contests to the validity of wills and trusts.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in Guardianship/Conservatorship Proceedings, No Contest Clause \ Comments Off on Estate Litigation Predictions for 2020

Public Policy Limits on Wills – May a Will Condition a Bequest on a Beneficiary’s Obtaining a Divorce?

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.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in General \ Comments Off on Public Policy Limits on Wills – May a Will Condition a Bequest on a Beneficiary’s Obtaining a Divorce?

Virginia Supreme Court Issues New Ruling Regarding Commissioner of Accounts

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.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Comments Off on Virginia Supreme Court Issues New Ruling Regarding Commissioner of Accounts

Prior Correspondence: A Key Tool in Preparing Your Estate Dispute Case for Trial

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.

Is that correspondence admissible at trial?

Trials are governed by the rules of evidence. These rules are detailed, nuanced, and not always intuitive.

As practitioners, we typically become involved in estate disputes weeks, months, or even years after the initial dispute breaks out. During this time, a great deal of potentially relevant evidence has likely been generated through the exchange of emails, texts, letters, and the like.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in General \ Comments Off on Prior Correspondence: A Key Tool in Preparing Your Estate Dispute Case for Trial

What Happens When a Will’s Language is Inconsistent with the Titling of an Account Held with Survivorship?

A common question on most financial/investment account applications is whether an account-holder desires to own the account with one or more persons, with or without survivorship. Owning an account with “survivorship” means that upon the passing of one account-holder, the entirety of the funds will pass to the surviving account-holder (regardless of what the departed account-holder’s will or trust provides).

A common question that we encounter is what happens when a will’s language is inconsistent with the titling of an account held with survivorship?

The short answer is that the survivorship titling of the account will typically control over a will’s language.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in General \ Comments Off on What Happens When a Will’s Language is Inconsistent with the Titling of an Account Held with Survivorship?

Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Power of Attorney Litigation: Virginia General Assembly Passes New Law Permitting the Recovery of Fees

The Virginia General Assembly passed a law in the 2019 legislative session that authorizes a successful plaintiff to receive an award of attorney’s fees in litigation under the Virginia Uniform Power of Attorney Act, where the court finds that the agent under the power of attorney breached his fiduciary duty.

The law constitutes an addition to Virginia Code Section 64.2-1614, and states as follows:

E. In a judicial proceeding under this chapter, if the court finds that the agent breached his fiduciary duty in violation of the provisions of this chapter, the court, as justice and equity may require, may award costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, to any person who petitions the court for relief under subdivisions A 1 through 8, to be paid by the agent found in violation. This provision applies to a judicial proceeding concerning a power of attorney commenced on or after July 1, 2019.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Comments Off on Recovering Attorney’s Fees in Power of Attorney Litigation: Virginia General Assembly Passes New Law Permitting the Recovery of Fees

Jury Instructions on Undue Influence: Virginia Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

The Virginia Supreme Court recently handed down an important ruling that clarifies how juries should be instructed as to a presumption of undue influence in will contests. This opinion (Parson v. Miller, 822 S.E.2d 169) is essential reading for any estate litigator.

Under Virginia law, a presumption of undue influence arises in certain circumstances relating to the execution of a will, pursuant to which the burden of proof shifts to the proponent of the will to rebut the presumption. Prior to Parson, there was some question as to the manner in which a jury should be instructed about the presumption of undue influence. The question was: should the jury be instructed to find whether the presumption of undue influence has been rebutted, or should the trial court make such a determination as a matter of law (and in turn keep that decision from the jury)?

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in Undue Influence \ Comments Off on Jury Instructions on Undue Influence: Virginia Supreme Court Clarifies the Law

Matters of Style: Spouse’s Elective Share Suit Dismissed for Naming the Wrong Party

The identity of parties matters a great deal in litigation.  The failure to sue the right person can have serious consequences.  Even if a litigant has a solid case, naming the wrong party can prematurely end a case without the suit ever being heard on the merits.  In some cases, courts permit amendments of lawsuits.  In light of that, some may assume that a mistake may be overlooked or fixed by a court.  Not so.  For these reasons, it is critical to enlist the help of an experienced litigator when faced with an estate dispute.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in General \ Comments Off on Matters of Style: Spouse’s Elective Share Suit Dismissed for Naming the Wrong Party

Virginia Supreme Court Clarifies Remedies In Power Of Attorney Lawsuits

The Virginia Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that clarifies that under the Virginia Uniform Power of Attorney Act, trial courts may award monetary damages against an agent under a power of attorney, but may not issue an injunction directing that the agent must return money.

The issue arose due to language contained in the Virginia Uniform Power of Attorney Act, Section 64.2-1615(1), which provides that agents under powers of attorneys are “liable to the principal or the principal’s successors in interest for the amount required to [r]estore the value of the principal’s property to what it would have been had the violation not occurred.” At issue in the case (Mangrum v. Chavis, 18 Va. S. Ct. UNP 160782 (2018)) was whether this language provides that the agent under a power of attorney who is being sued for alleged financial improprieties may be forced by court order to restore money to the estate of the deceased principal under the power of attorney, or whether it provides merely that a money judgment may be entered against the agent.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Comments Off on Virginia Supreme Court Clarifies Remedies In Power Of Attorney Lawsuits

A Bewildering Bequest: The Supreme Court of Virginia Weighs in on the Meaning of a Will’s Residuary Clause

Most people are familiar with the basic contents of a will.  Wills typically name an executor, order the payment of debts and expenses, and provide for the distribution of the testator’s (will-maker) property.  Many wills provide for specific property to pass to specific people.  These are known as specific bequests or devises.  In addition to such bequests or devises, most wills contain a residuary clause – sort of a catch-all disposition for all of the rest and remainder of the estate.  They typically read something like this: “I leave all of the rest, residue, and remainder of my property, of whatever sort, to [beneficiary’s name]”.  On occasion, however, wills contain ambiguous or otherwise unclear provisions that require a court’s deciphering.

CONTINUE READING . . .

Posted in General \ Comments Off on A Bewildering Bequest: The Supreme Court of Virginia Weighs in on the Meaning of a Will’s Residuary Clause