Spicer v. Wright
85 A.L.R. 3d 1175, 215 Va. 520, 211 S.E.2d 79 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a will contains precatory language directing a legatee to dispose of property according to a prior agreement, a trust is not created unless there is clear extrinsic evidence of a testamentary intent to impose a legally enforceable obligation with specific terms and beneficiaries.
Facts:
- Leila Wilson Spicer and her sister, Anne Beecher Wilson, were very close and lived together for many years.
- After Leila married Meade T. Spicer, Jr., Anne moved in with the couple.
- Approximately one month before the will was written, Meade Spicer was hospitalized for a cardiovascular condition and exhibited confusion.
- Leila Spicer executed a holographic will leaving her entire estate to her sister, Anne.
- The will stated, "My estate of every kind and description... I give to my sister, Anne Beecher Wilson to be disposed of as already agreed between us."
- Leila Spicer died on March 22, 1968, and her sister, Anne Wilson, died on June 8, 1970.
- There was no written record or definitive testimony detailing the terms of the alleged agreement between the sisters.
- The sisters had previously told their maid that they did not want any distant relatives to inherit their property.
Procedural Posture:
- Leila Wilson Spicer's holographic will was admitted to probate after her death.
- The administrator of Mrs. Spicer's estate filed a bill in a trial court seeking aid and guidance in construing the will.
- The trial court (chancellor) held that Anne Beecher Wilson's estate acquired fee simple title to the property, free from any trust.
- Meade T. Spicer, Jr., the deceased's husband, appealed the trial court's decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
- Following Meade T. Spicer, Jr.'s death during the appeal, the executrix of his estate was substituted as the party appellant.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a will provision that gives an estate to a beneficiary "to be disposed of as already agreed between us" create an enforceable express trust when the terms of the agreement are not specified or proven?
Opinions:
Majority - Poff, J.
No, this language does not create an enforceable express trust. Precatory language directed to a legatee, rather than an executor, creates a trust only if there is a clear testamentary intent to impose a legal obligation upon the legatee to make a particular disposition of the property. Here, the phrase "to be disposed of as already agreed between us" is precatory. While extrinsic evidence confirmed a close relationship and a possible "understanding" between the sisters, it failed to establish the specific terms of a legally enforceable agreement, such as the identity of the beneficiaries or the nature of their interests. Without proof of an intent to impose a binding legal duty with definite terms, the language merely reflects a moral obligation and constitutes an absolute gift in fee simple to Anne Beecher Wilson.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the high evidentiary burden required to transform precatory language in a will into a legally enforceable trust. It clarifies that a mere reference to an external agreement is insufficient; the party alleging a trust must prove the testator's intent to create a legal, not merely moral, obligation, and must also prove the essential terms of that obligation. The ruling serves as a cautionary tale for estate planners and testators, emphasizing the need for explicit and unambiguous language when creating testamentary trusts to avoid the risk of the bequest being interpreted as an absolute gift.
