Justia Virginia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Jared and Donna Murayama 1997 Trust sought damages arising from a settlement agreement between the Trust, its trustee Jared Murayama, and two of the defendants, NISC Holdings, LLC and Omen LLC, which transaction included NISC's repurchase of the Trust's voting stock in NISC (the "settlement agreement"). The Trust claimed it was damaged from selling the stock to NISC for substantially less than its fair market value as a result of the Trust's reliance on fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations of Defendants. The circuit court found that the Trust's allegations established that, as a matter of law, the Trust did not reasonably rely upon Defendants' alleged fraudulent omissions and misrepresentations regarding the value of the NISC stock at the time of the settlement. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment sustaining Defendants' demurrer, holding that the circuit court did not err in its judgment based upon both the language of the settlement agreement and the allegations regarding the adversarial relationship between Murayama and the defendants that precipitated the settlement. View "Murayama 1997 Trust v. NISC Holdings, LLC" on Justia Law

Nina and her brother Eddie Russell were co-trustees of several family trusts. The trust estate consisted of the interests held by Nina and Eddie as co-trustees in Russell Realty Associates (RRA), which was created by the siblings' father. Nina and Russell disagreed about several matters and conflicts escalated. Eventually, Eddie, individually and as co-trustee, filed a complaint seeking judicial dissolution and winding up of RRA. The circuit court granted Eddie's complaint for dissolution, finding that the economic purpose of RRA was likely to be reasonably frustrated and that the business could no longer practicably operate in conformity with the partnership agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was sufficient evidence to support the circuit court's findings. View "Russell Realty Assocs. v. Russell" on Justia Law

When Arvid and Lucy Keith were married, Arvid had a son from a previous marriage, Walter Keith (Keith), and Lucy had a daughter, Veronica Lulofs (Lulofs). Arvid and Lucy executed wills in 1987 that were mirror images of each other. Each will left the estate first to the surviving spouse and then to Keith and Lulofs equally. Arvid died in 1996 and his estate passed to Lucy. Lucy then executed a new will 1996 in which she left the entirety of her estate to Lulofs and made no provision for Keith. After Lucy's death, Lulofs attempted to probate Lucy's will, which Keith challenged. The trial court concluded that Keith failed to provide that the 1987 wills executed by Arvid and Lucy were irrevocable, reciprocal wills and accepted Lucy's 1996 will for probate, entering judgment accordingly. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in holding that (1) the wills did not form an irrevocable contract between the testators; and (2) Keith's testimony presenting circumstantial evidence that Arvid and Lucy intended for the wills to be contracts was not corroborated as required by the Dead Man's statute. View "Keith v. Lulofs" on Justia Law

After the decedent's death, the decedent's daughter probated her 2008 will and qualified as executor for the will. The decedent's remaining children sued the daughter to challenge the will. The trial court ruled that the 2008 will had been impeached and Decedent's 2007 will should proceed to probate, holding (1) Decedent lacked testamentary capacity when she executed her contested will, and (2) the contested will was the result of undue influence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court erred where (1) the trial court's decision that Decedent lacked testamentary capacity was based on an incorrect view of the law and an improper weighing of the evidence; and (2) the evidence in this case rebutted the presumption of undue influence. Remanded. View "Weedon v. Weedon" on Justia Law

Judy Maretta, as the named beneficiary of a Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance (FEGLI) policy, received FEGLI benefits upon the death of her ex-husband. Jacqueline Hillman, the widow of the deceased, filed an action against Maretta, claiming that pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 20-111.1(D), Maretta was liable to her for the death benefits received. Maretta claimed that the state law was preempted by 5 U.S.C. 8705 and 8705 because the state statutes granted FEGLI benefits to someone other than the named beneficiary in violation of FEGLIA's terms. The circuit court concluded that section 20-111.1(D) was not preempted by FEGLIA and entered judgment against Maretta. The Supreme Court reversed and entered judgment for Maretta, holding that because Congress intended for FEGLI benefits to be paid and to belong to a designated beneficiary, FEGLIA preempts section 20-111.1(D). View "Maretta v. Hillman" on Justia Law

Dewey Monroe, a member of a limited liability company, died. Through his will, Dewey bequeathed his entire estate to his daughter, Janet. Janet asserted that Dewey transferred his membership in the company to her. Lou Ann Monroe, the company's managing member, responded that Janet had inherited only Dewey's right to share in profits and losses of the company and to receive distributions to which he would be entitled. Janet filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking declaratory judgment that she had inherited her father's full membership in the company and that Lou Ann and Joseph Monroe, who was named in the company's operating agreement as a successor managing member, had been validly removed from their positions. The circuit court ruled that Janet was not a member of the company and thus lacked the authority to remove Lou Ann and Joseph from their positions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the company's operating agreement lacked specific language that would constitute an exception to the rule of dissociation set forth in Va. Code Ann. 13.1-1040.1; and (2) therefore, Dewey was dissociated from the company upon his death and Janet became a mere assignee, entitled only to Dewey's financial interest. View "Ott v. Monroe" on Justia Law

A limited liability company (MIC) was formed for the purpose of building and operating a hotel. The original members of MIC were a revocable trust (the Trust), trustee Michael Siska, and Thomas, Jane, and Jason Dowdy. Later, Thomas and Jane Dowdy transferred, without the Trust's involvement, MIC's assets to Milestone Development, the Dowdy's family company. The Trust filed an amended complaint derivatively on behalf of MIC against Defendants, Milestone and the Dowdys. In its amended complaint, the Trust claimed that the transfer of assets to Milestone was not in the best interests of MIC or its members and alleging, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unlawful distribution, and conversion, and seeking to recover damages. The Trust, however, did not join MIC as a party to the derivative action. The circuit court dismissed the Trust's amended complaint, holding that the Trust lacked standing to maintain the derivative action on behalf of MIC because the Trust could not fairly represent the interests of the Defendant shareholders. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that it would not entertain the appeal on the merits because MIC was a necessary party to the proceeding and had not been joined. Remanded. View "Michael E. Siska Revocable Trust v. Milestone Dev., L.L.C." on Justia Law

Justine Critzer died intestate with, apparently, no spouse, siblings, children or parents to survive her. Nancy Donak, the administratrix of Critzer's estate, subsequently discovered that the Mary Kummer ("Mrs. Kummer"), the deceased mother of Richard and Charles Kummer and Jane Kummer Stolte ("Kummer children"), was the biological sister of Critzer. Consequently, the Kummer children were Critzer's closest surviving heirs. After the Kummer children began to administer the estate, Donak filed a motion for rule to show cause against distribution based upon the fact that Mrs. Kummer had been adopted at the age of fifty-three by her aunt by marriage. At a hearing to determine the effect of Mrs. Kummer's adoption, the court held (1) the Kummer children were not Critzer's heirs at law because Mrs. Kummer's adoption severed their legal ties to Critzer and her estate, and (2) Virginia's statutory scheme does not distinguish between the adoption of an adult and the adoption of a minor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that the Kummer children were not heirs-at-law of the Critzer estate because their mother's adult adoption severed their inheritance rights. View "Kummer v. Donak" on Justia Law

These appeals arose out of two cases brought after Mother was shot and killed by her only child, Clayton Lynn. Mother's will identified Lynn as the sole beneficiary of her estate. Lynn's daughters (Granddaughters) filed separate actions seeking declaratory judgment that Lynn be declared a "slayer" for the purposes of the Slayer Statute and that the Granddaughters be declared the sole heirs of Mother's estate. The circuit court consolidated the two actions and held that Mother's mother was the sole and rightful heir to Mother's estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the version of the Slayer Statute in effect on the date of Mother's murder controlled the distribution of Mother's estate in this case, and as a result, the trial court was correct in concluding that under the laws of intestate succession at the time of Mother's death, as modified by the Slayer Statute in effect, Mother's estate passed to the next living person who was neither the slayer nor making a claim through the slayer; and (2) the version of the Slayer Statute in effect on the date of Mother's murder neither implicated nor violated Virginia's prohibition against corruption of blood or forfeiture of estate. View "Bell v. Casper" on Justia Law

Appellee Donald Gunter originally filed an action against Appellant Robbie Martin individually and in her capacity as administrator of the estate of George Martin in 2005. Gunter alleged that the decedent died intestate. She listed herself as sole heir, but he was the biological child of the decedent, therefore the list of heirs filed with the estate was incorrect. Gunter petitioned the court to allow an amended list of heirs to be filed; Martin moved to dismiss on the grounds that Gunter failed to bring his action within one year of the decedent's death. The court granted the motion and dismissed the action. In 2009, Gunter filed a complaint for quiet title and for allotment or sale or real property, naming Martin in her individual capacity as sole defendant. Gunter alleged that the decedent died intestate, Martin was his widow, he was the biological son of the decedent, and that the real property in question could not be partitioned conveniently. Martin filed a plea in bar of res judicata, arguing that the relief Gunter seeks relies on a determination of whether he is the decedent's biological child, which had been decided in the 2005 matter. The circuit court sustained the plea in bar. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the remedy sought in the 2005 action was different from the remedy in the 2009 action, and reversed the lower court decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.