Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Annual Survey of Virginia Law (1)
- Black v. Edwards (1)
- Broadway National Bank v. Adams (1)
- Claflin Doctrine (1)
- Claflin v. Claflin (1)
-
- Code of Virginia (1)
- Estate of Ridenour v. CIR (1)
- Goriczynski v. Poston (1)
- Hamerstrom v. Commerce Bank of Kansas City (1)
- Herndon v. Chesapeake National Bank (1)
- In re Estate Morton Diamond (1)
- Landmark Communications v. Sovran Bank NA (1)
- Levey v. First Virginia Bank (1)
- NationsBank v. Grandy (1)
- Petition for Reformation of Trust (1)
- Saunders v. Vautier (1)
- Shelton v. King (1)
- Shmucker v. Walker (1)
- Telephones v. LaPrade (1)
- The Dead Hand Loses its Grip in Virginia: A New Rule for Trust Amendment and Termination? (1)
- UCTA (1)
- Unified Credit Shelter Trust (1)
- Uniform Custodial Trust Act (1)
- Uniform International Wills Act (1)
- VBA (1)
- Vaughn v. Shank (1)
- Virginia Bar Association (1)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Wills, Trusts, And Estates, J. Rodney Johnson
Annual Survey Of Virginia Law: Wills, Trusts, And Estates, J. Rodney Johnson
University of Richmond Law Review
The 1995 Session of the General Assembly enacted legislation dealing with wills, trusts, and estates that added, amended, or repealed a number of sections of the Code of Virginia. In addition to this legislation, there were five Supreme Court of Virginia opinions and one Fourth Circuit opinion in the year ending June 1, 1995 that involved issues of interest to both the general practitioner and the specialist in wills, trusts, and estates. This article analyzes each of these legislative and judicial developments.
The Dead Hand Loses Its Grip In Virginia: A New Rule For Trust Amendment And Termination?, Jessica L. Lacey
The Dead Hand Loses Its Grip In Virginia: A New Rule For Trust Amendment And Termination?, Jessica L. Lacey
University of Richmond Law Review
The majority rule in America for the amendment and termination of trusts was first adopted in Claflin v. Claflin and came to be known as the Claflin Doctrine. This rule states that "a testator has a right to dispose of his own property with such restrictions and limitations, not repugnant to law, as he sees fit, and that his intentions ought to be carried out, unless they contravene some positive rule of law, or are against public policy." In effect, the Claflin Doctrine is codified in the Restatement (Second) of Trusts, which states that trust beneficiaries cannot compel a trust's …
University Of Richmond Law Review
University Of Richmond Law Review
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.