From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
Fletcher v. Fletcher
Supreme Court of Virginia
480 S.E.2d (1997)
Elinor Leh Fletcher executed a ten page inter vivos trust to which she later executed a five-page amendment. At Elinor’s death, the amended trust provided for the creation of three separate trusts in the amount of $50,000 each for the respective benefit of her son, James N. Fletcher (plaintiff), and James’ two children, Andrew and Emily Fletcher. Elinor appointed as trustees her other son, Henry L. Fletcher, and F & M Bank-Peoples Trust and Asset Management Group (Trustees) (defendants). After the Trustees took over following Elinor’s death, James requested a copy of the entire amended trust instrument since he was only provided three pages of the document. He also asked to review Schedule A, an attachment to the trust that listed assets transferred to the trust. When the Trustees refused to allow James to review these documents, claiming that Elinor had orally instructed them to keep the trust provisions relating to the separate trusts confidential, James brought an action against the Trustees seeking to compel them to turn over the requested documents. James claimed that refusal to allow him to review the complete trust instrument and related documents prevented him from determining whether the Trustees were adequately protecting his interests or whether there had been a breach of trust. The Trustees defended that they had turned over all information in the trust that related to James and his children, and made regular accountings relevant to their interests. The Trustees filed the trust agreement but not the attachment, Schedule A, under seal for review by the court. The trial court held that James had an “absolute right to complete copies” of the trust, amendment and related documents, including Schedule A. The Trustees appealed, asserting that the creation of separate trusts gave rise to separate fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries and that James had received everything he was entitled to review.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Compton, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 602,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 602,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.