Wills and trusts: Trial court did not err in enforcing decedent’s will

Where the decedent executed a will leaving most of his estate to his partner’s niece and nephews, and there was sufficient evidence he did not revoke this will, the court did not err in enforcing it.

Background                                                         

Joanne Kreiser challenges the circuit court admitting to probate a copy of her brother, Eric William Kreiser’s will. She argues that the circuit court erred by presuming that the original will was lost and requiring her to prove that Eric had revoked his will. Kreiser also argues that Gary Peevely, the proponent of the will, did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the original will had been lost rather than revoked.

Analysis

The evidence established that in July 2019, sudden flooding caused water to pour into the Vienna house’s downstairs rooms “like a waterfall.” Once the water receded, numerous items, including papers, had to be discarded because they were “ruined” and unidentifiable.

Many of the items disposed of were “all gummed up together” and “had to be scooped up with shovels.” Later efforts to address the water damage to the house revealed the presence of asbestos, requiring the house to be emptied of “all” its furnishings and contents for additional remediation. Taken in the light most favorable to Peevely, this circumstantial evidence provides two likely explanations for how Eric’s will was lost.

But even if the court considers only Eric’s testamentary intent, as evidenced “by the consistency of his mental attitude towards his various relatives,” the evidence still supports the conclusion that, “whatever may have happened to [the will], the testator did not revoke it.” Eric developed and maintained a “close relationship” with Thomas’s family, including Peevely and Karen, their son and daughter, and Thomas’s other nephew. He executed a will and trust agreement leaving most of his estate to Thomas’s niece and nephews.

In 2009, he told Peevely and Karen about his estate plan and assured them that their two children would be “well taken care of.” Eric attended the 2014 wedding of Thomas’s niece and often spent vacations and holidays with Thomas’s family. After Thomas’s death in 2020, Eric’s relationship with Thomas’s family continued.

According to every witness, Eric never expressed any intent to change, revoke or destroy his will. And, in 2021 and 2022, just months before his death, Eric affirmed to his attorney and Hoover that his desire was for his estate to pass to Thomas’s niece and nephews, even showing a copy of the 2008 will to Hoover.

Eric’s relationship with his own family was less sunny. He never mentioned them to Karen or Peevely and told Hoover that his family had “abandoned” him because he was gay.

So, from prior to executing his will in 2008 until his death, Eric maintained a close relationship with Thomas’s family, participating in their lives and allowing them to participate in his. But, during those same years, Eric had a distant relationship with Kreiser and the rest of his family. Taken in the light most favorable to Peevely, this evidence supports the circuit court’s finding that Eric “maintain[ed] his testamentary intent as set out in the 2008 will” and that, whatever became of the original will, he did not revoke it.

Finally, when Eric discovered that he could not find the original or copies of his will and trust agreement, he was “very concerned” and confirmed to Hoover and his attorney that his testamentary wishes remained unchanged. Eric obtained copies of those documents and stored them with other important papers, where Kreiser found them after his death.

If Eric had intended to revoke his will “by destroying the original, it would have been logical that he would have removed the photocopy from his file of important papers.” Id. at 25. But, not only did he keep the copies, he took them out and showed them to Hoover just months before his death in 2022. Thus, Eric’s actions are “inconsistent with” someone who has revoked his will.

Affirmed.

Kreiser v. Peevely, Record No. 1471-24-4, Sept. 23, 2025. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Ortiz). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Blanch). Paul A. Prados (Executive Law Partners, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant. Linh H. Ly (Law Office of Linh H. Ly PLLC, on brief), for appellee Gary Peevely. VLW 025-7-265. 13 pp.