Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealprobatetrustwill
appealtrustwill

Related Cases

In re Estate of Myers, 825 N.W.2d 1
View Case »
Castleton’s Estate v. Schlicht, 504 P.2d 1103
View Case »
Jackson v. Phillips, 14 Allen 539, 96 Mass. 539, 1867 WL 5527
View Case »
Vincent v. Rix, 221 A.D. 209, 223 N.Y.S. 364
View Case »
Thorsen v. Richmond Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 292 Va. 257, 786 S.E.2d 453
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Keener v. Keener, 278 Va. 435, 682 S.E.2d 545

Facts

Hollis Grant Keener, the testator, created a revocable living trust and a pour-over will, intending to distribute his assets to his seven children. After his death, his daughter Debra attempted to probate a copy of the will, believing it had not been offered for probate, and was appointed administratrix of the estate. This led to a legal dispute with her siblings, who claimed her actions violated the trust's no-contest clause, resulting in her forfeiting her interest in the trust.

Hollis Grant Keener (the testator), a widower residing in Prince William County, died on August 7, 2007, survived by his seven children.

Issue

Did Debra's act of opening intestate administration of her father's estate trigger the no-contest provisions of the trust?

The only question presented on appeal is whether that act triggered the no-contest clause in the trust.

Rule

No-contest provisions are strictly construed, and a forfeiture clause will not be enforced except according to its clear terms.

No-contest provisions are strictly construed for two reasons.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Debra's actions constituted a contest of the trust. It concluded that her opening of intestate administration did not fall within the language of the no-contest clause, as she did not object to or contest any specific provision of the trust. The court emphasized that the testator could have included broader language in the trust or will to encompass such actions but chose not to do so.

Applying those principles, we conclude that Debra's acts did not bring her within the trust's language: 'Any person that objects to or contests any provision of this Trust, in whole or in part, shall forfeit his or her entire distribution….'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court's ruling, determining that Debra's actions did not trigger the forfeiture clause, and remanded the case for further proceedings regarding her counterclaim.

We conclude that the circuit court erred in holding that Debra's act in opening administration of the estate brought her within the forfeiture clause of the trust, and that she therefore lacked standing to pursue the claims asserted in her amended counterclaim.

Who won?

Debra prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that her actions did not trigger the no-contest clause, allowing her to pursue her counterclaim.

Debra prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that her actions did not trigger the no-contest clause, allowing her to pursue her counterclaim.

You must be