Wills and trusts – Appellant fails to show circuit court’s beneficiary determination was incorrect

Where the circuit court’s decision determining the beneficiaries of a will was based on two alternative holdings, the appellant challenged only one reason on appeal and the other reason provided a sufficient basis for affirming the circuit court’s judgment, it was affirmed.

Background

Diane Chadwick appeals the circuit court’s judgment determining the beneficiaries of the last will and testament of Nelson Donald Hickerson.

Analysis

The circuit court articulated two alternative holdings: (1) that Chadwick lacked standing to challenge the distributive provisions of the will and (2) that even if she had standing, her arguments were not supported by the handwritten changes to the will and applicable law. Chadwick’s appeal challenges the latter, but not the former.

The question before us, then, is whether standing constitutes a freestanding basis that supports the circuit court’s judgment. It does. The circuit court’s standing holding was an “adequate and independent legal basis” for rejecting Chadwick’s arguments, because standing “is a dispositive issue on appeal; if a party lacks standing, [this court] will not consider the merits of the case.” Thus this court does not examine the merits of whether Chadwick had standing because Chadwick waived that issue by not assigning error to it on appeal.

This remains true even though Chadwick raises standing in her reply brief, because her standing argument comes too late. By waiting until her reply brief to challenge the merits of the circuit court’s standing decision, she waived the argument. Moreover, Chadwick’s contention that the circuit court’s standing decision was merely dictum ignores the circuit court’s explicit ruling articulated both from the bench and in the final order: that Chadwick lacked standing.

Affirmed.

Chadwick v. Hickerson, Record No. 1684-24-4, May 19, 2026. CAV (unpublished opinion) (Duffan). From the Circuit Court of Fairfax County (Leary). (Daniel A. Harvill; Daniel A. Harvill, PLLC, on briefs), for appellant. (Joseph W. Thelin; von Keller Thelin Williams, PC, on brief), for appellee Brian William Hickerson. (Joseph W. Stuart, on brief), for appellees Valerie B. Geiger and Cary Z. Cucinelli, Administrators C.T.A. of the Estate of Nelson Donald Hickerson. VLW 026-7-210. 6 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-7-210