Gift deed extinguished prior testamentary gifts

Appellants lacked standing to pursue rescission of the decedent’s inter vivos gift of property to the appellees because they had no legal interest in the property.

Although the decedent’s will provided appellants testamentary gifts of two parcels of land, those testamentary gifts were extinguished when the decedent transferred the entire property without reserving the parcels for appellants. 

Overview

The decedent, Dr. Griffith, was survived by three adult children, Mary Carroll and Lindsay Carr, the appellants, and Charles. He was also survived by Mary Cate, his second wife.

Dr. Griffith’s 2008 will provided that his 704-acre farm, the Albany Farm, would be placed in a trust for Mary Cate’s benefit. If Mary Cate predeceased Dr. Griffith, Charles would receive the Albany Farm, apart from two 10-acre parcels for the appellants.

Dr, Griffin wrote a new will in 2010, which revoked all prior wills. This will gave each appellant a 20-acre parcel and the remainder to Mary Cate and Charles.

In 2014, Dr. Griffith executed a chattel deed, which gave Mary Cate all of the personal property in the Albany Farm residence and their shared residence in Richmond. In 2016, six months before he died, he executed a deed giving Mary Cate a life estate in the Albany Farm and the entirety of the Albany Farm to Charles subject to Mary Cate’s life estate. The gift deed did not reserve the two 20-acre parcels devised to appellants in the 2010 will.

After Dr. Griffith died, appellants unsuccessfully challenged the validity of the 2010 will. The circuit court ruled that the will was valid. Appellants did not appeal.

In 2018, they filed an action claiming that “Mary Cate and Charles committed a breach of fiduciary duty, waste of the estate, constructive fraud, conversion, conspiracy to commit conversion, business conspiracy, and undue influence. More specifically, the appellants alleged that Mary Cate unduly influenced Dr. Griffith to sign the chattel deed. Further, the appellants alleged that in 2016, Charles and Mary Cate conspired to convert $13,000,000 of Dr. Griffith’s assets using their confidential relationship to exert undue influence over Dr. Griffith.”

The complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The court concluded because the transfers occurred while Dr. Griffith was alive, only Dr. Griffith’s personal representative, Charles, could bring the claims alleged. The court ruled appellants had no interest in the property because the gift deed “extinguished the prior testamentary gifts of the two 20-acre parcels on Albany Farm.”

Ruling

“On appeal, the appellants maintain that they have standing to pursue the rescission of the inter vivos deeds because they are ‘vested beneficiaries’ of two 20-acre parcels of Albany Farm.

“We review de novo the question of whether the appellants’ factual allegations were sufficient to establish standing, as this issue presents a question of law. …

“To establish standing, it is essential for a litigant to ‘show an immediate, pecuniary, and substantial interest in the litigation, and not a remote or indirect interest.’ … Virginia law establishes that ‘[t]he personal representative, not a beneficiary of the estate, is the proper party to litigate on behalf of the estate and that is true even when the personal representative is also a possible beneficiary of the estate.’ …

“Although the appellants have consistently denied that they are challenging the estate or suing on behalf of the estate, their claims relating to the rescission of the inter vivos transfers are inherently on behalf of the estate as they would have belonged to Dr. Griffith during his lifetime. … Dr. Griffith’s estate would ‘directly benefit’ if the appellants prevailed on their claims. … 

“In contrast, the appellants would only indirectly benefit from their claims as the potential beneficiaries of Dr. Griffith’s 2010 will. …

“The appellants contend that it is unreasonable to expect ‘a personal representative and beneficiary whose unlawful conduct has cheated other beneficiaries and the estate’ to pursue claims on behalf of the estate to correct his or her own misconduct. 

“Nevertheless, the appellants have failed to file a petition to remove and replace Charles as personal representative of the estate. Charles remains the personal representative of Dr. Griffith’s estate, and he is the only party entitled to bring suit on behalf of the estate. Consequently, the appellants do not have standing to bring the claims asserted.”

Affirmed.

Platt, et al. v. Griffith, et al., Record No. 190817, Jan. 21, 2021. Upon appeal from a judgment rendered by the Circuit Court of Henrico County. Daniel A Carrell, Robert Coleman Smith for appellants. Benjamin William Pace, Hugh Taylor Antrim, Michael Anthony Montgomery, Jennifer Lyn Upton, James Edward Moore, Joseph Ray Pope, Andrew Gray Mauck, Warren David Harless, Shannan Marie Fitzgerald for appellees. VLW 021-6-001, 5 pp.