Leach v. Hyatt
Virginia Supreme Court
423 S.E.2d 165, 244 Va. 566 (1992)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Sidney Louis Hyatt’s will contained a clause, Clause II, that expressly stated that Clause II’s purpose was to dispose of $600,000 of Sidney’s assets. However, Clause II only specified eight bequests totaling approximately $260,000. The rest of Clause II stated that in the absence of instructions from Sidney to the executor, the executor would appoint which persons would receive something under Clause II in the executor’s sole and absolute discretion, but that this limited power of appointment could not be used to increase any bequests made to the executor. O. Max Leach (defendant) served as the executor for Sidney’s estate. Sidney’s nephew, Louis S. Hyatt (plaintiff), filed a complaint challenging Sidney’s will. Louis argued that because Clause II did not fully dispose of $600,000, the remainder of the $600,000 should pass by intestate succession. Leach moved for summary judgment, arguing that Clause II did dispose of the remainder of the $600,000 through the limited power of appointment. The trial court denied the motion, ruling that Clause II’s limited power of appointment was unenforceable because it was vague, overbroad, and did not limit the executor’s discretion. Leach appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Keenan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
