<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Virginia Lawyers Weekly &#187; Wills &amp; Trusts</title>
	<atom:link href="http://valawyersweekly.com/tag/wills-trusts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://valawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description>VA Lawyers Weekly</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 20:35:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Trusts in Medicaid and asset protection planning</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/19/trusts-in-medicaid-and-asset-protection-planning/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/19/trusts-in-medicaid-and-asset-protection-planning/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Virginia Lawyers Weekly</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Elder Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=72696</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The revocable living trust is a very useful and popular estate planning tool, recommended by most estate planning attorneys across the U.S. and used as the central estate planning document by millions of Americans. The primary benefit of the revocable living trust is that assets properly funded into such a trust are protected from the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2013/02/19/trusts-in-medicaid-and-asset-protection-planning/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Guardian Can Change Beneficiary&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/new-guardian-can-change-beneficiary/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/new-guardian-can-change-beneficiary/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2012 16:35:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Mary Jane Hall]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this suit involving competing claims to life insurance proceeds, a Norfolk Circuit Court holds that decedent’s widow, who was replaced by decedent’s daughter as his guardian and conservator, could be removed by the daughter as a beneficiary on decedent’s life insurance benefits, a change he requested when the daughter assisted him in processing his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/12/19/new-guardian-can-change-beneficiary/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Codicil Language Gives Widow Property&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/codicil-language-gives-widow-property/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/codicil-language-gives-widow-property/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 21:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Thomas D. Horne]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rappahannock County Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=71011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Rappahannock County Circuit Court grants a widow’s motion for partial summary judgment recognizing her right to all testator husband’s personal property and real estate “currently” in the testator’s name, interpreted as property owned at the time of the testator’s death. The relevant provisions of the Codicil paragraph 3 state the testator gives to his [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/codicil-language-gives-widow-property/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ex-Wife Won’t Be Joined for IRA Claim&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/ex-wife-wont-be-joined-for-ira-claim/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/ex-wife-wont-be-joined-for-ira-claim/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2012 18:30:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge James P. Jones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. District Court - Western District]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this dispute over ownership of decedent’s individual retirement account, the Abingdon U.S. District Court denies the IRA custodian’s motion to join decedent’s ex-wife as a necessary party by making her an involuntary plaintiff. Although decedent and the ex-wife divorced in 2005 before he died intestate in 2011, the ex-wife still is named as beneficiary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/20/ex-wife-wont-be-joined-for-ira-claim/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting to the jury on ‘capacity’ for will&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/14/high-court-clarifies-rule-on-presumptions/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/14/high-court-clarifies-rule-on-presumptions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Nov 2012 14:10:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Vieth</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alexandria Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cleo E. Powell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cynthia D. Kinser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Donald W. Lemons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Elizabeth A. McClanahan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice LeRoy F. Millette Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice William C. Mims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70828</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Call it a finger on the scale of justice. The law sometimes gives an advantage to one side in a lawsuit, allowing a legal “presumption” about some key fact in the case. Presumptions can be overcome, but how much weight it takes, who gets to make the call, and what happens afterward have been open [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/14/high-court-clarifies-rule-on-presumptions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebutted Presumption Does Not ‘Disappear’&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/06/rebutted-presumption-does-not-disappear/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/06/rebutted-presumption-does-not-disappear/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2012 19:41:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cleo E. Powell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70548</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In this challenge to the testamentary capacity of a woman who left most of her estate to three charities, by a cousin whose share under the later will was reduced to the testator’s dog and a fund for its care, a trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the presumption of testamentary [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/06/rebutted-presumption-does-not-disappear/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reduced Share for Beneficiary Interference&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/reduced-share-for-beneficiary-interference/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/reduced-share-for-beneficiary-interference/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:29:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Louis Allen Sherman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Norfolk Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=70541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Norfolk Circuit Court upholds a commissioner’s finding that a beneficiary’s distribution from an estate will be reduced because of her substantial interference with efficient administration of the estate. Cleo Eppes died on March 18, 2007, and left two surviving children, James Eppes and Mary Martin, and two grandchildren, Bryan and Gregory Eppes (the ‘Brothers’), [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/11/05/reduced-share-for-beneficiary-interference/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Husband’s Elective Share Increased&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/husbands-elective-share-increased/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/husbands-elective-share-increased/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2012 18:43:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Justice Cynthia D. Kinser]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of Virginia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a son’s action to determine father’s elective share under Va. Code § 64.1-16.2(D), the Supreme Court of Virginia reverses the circuit court decision excluding from wife’s augmented estate $41,750 in funds husband gave her that she gave to son, and charging husband with more than half of a joint debt of $50,000 used in [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/24/husbands-elective-share-increased/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New ‘trust protector’ role is emerging in state&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/14/new-trust-protector-role-is-emerging-in-state/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/14/new-trust-protector-role-is-emerging-in-state/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2012 10:35:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News Stories]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69567</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lawyers setting up trusts for clients are forging a new role for an advisor charged with seeing that the client’s original intent is carried out: trust protector. Broadly speaking, the trust protector does not have a day-to-day role in managing the trust, but has a general oversight duty. A designated trust protector is often another [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/09/14/new-trust-protector-role-is-emerging-in-state/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘Interested’ Trustees May Not Terminate Trust&#160;</title>
		<link>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/28/interested-trustees-may-not-terminate-trust/</link>
		<comments>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/28/interested-trustees-may-not-terminate-trust/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:32:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Deborah Elkins</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judge Melvin R. Hughes Jr.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richmond Circuit Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Virginia Circuit Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wills & Trusts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://valawyersweekly.com/?p=69238</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Co-trustees may not terminate a trust due to “defendant’s persistent and repeated requests for documentation and accountings” by the trustees, says a Richmond Circuit Court. Plaintiffs allege these persistent requests cost the trust unnecessary time and expense, including legal fees. Defendant opposes the motion on the ground that by the terms of the trust, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://valawyersweekly.com/2012/08/28/interested-trustees-may-not-terminate-trust/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
