Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Sovran Bank, N.A.

387 S.E.2d 484, 239 Va. 158 (1990)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Sovran Bank, N.A.

Virginia Supreme Court
387 S.E.2d 484, 239 Va. 158 (1990)

Facts

William S. Glennan’s will was probated in 1958. The will, which was executed in 1952, created a testamentary trust to hold stock in Norfolk Newspapers, Inc. Item 11 of Glennan’s will designated six income beneficiaries, including Allen Tyler (plaintiff). Item 12 of the will provided that the trust would terminate on the death of the last surviving income beneficiary, and item 13 designated the remainder beneficiaries. One-fourth of the trust remainder would go to Lena Allen Everett if she was living, and if she was not living, then the one-fourth share would be divided equally among two of Lena’s four children or their heirs. Another one-fourth share was to go to Genevive Parker Allen, wife of James E. Allen, Jr., if she was married to and living with James; or, if James predeceased Genevive, then the one-fourth interest was to be divided equally among their children or heirs. Another one-fourth interest was to go to William B. Clark or his heirs, and the last one-fourth interest was to go to J. Goodenow Tyler or his heirs. Decades after Glennan’s death, the last surviving income beneficiary, Allen Tyler, along with eight remainder beneficiaries (plaintiffs) (collectively, Tyler) organized the sale of the trust assets to Landmark Communications, Inc., and TeleCable Corporation (collectively, Landmark) (plaintiff), the successors to Norfolk Newspapers, Inc. Landmark conditioned the sale on the beneficiaries’ interests being vested, so Landmark and Tyler filed suit seeking a declaration from the court, naming as defendants Sovran Bank, N.A. (Sovran) (defendant), the trustee, and 36 adult and 29 infant, unborn, and unknown descendants of the named remainder beneficiaries. A guardian ad litem was appointed to represent the interests of the infant, unborn, and unknown beneficiaries. Sovran and the guardian ad litem answered, arguing that the beneficiaries’ interests were not vested but were alternate contingent remainders. The trial court agreed, and Landmark and Tyler appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Lacy, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 820,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. 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.

Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership