Opinion ID: 1058041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: appellate issues and standard of review

Text: On appeal, Riverside assigns two errors. It first claims the circuit court erred in finding that the compensation paid as a result of the condemnation of a portion of the Trust property was an income receipt instead of a principal receipt. It is undisputed that the Trust received compensation as a result of the eminent domain action. To decide whether that condemnation compensation should be allocated as income or principal requires interpretation of both the Trust provisions and the relevant sections of the UPIA. Such issues are questions of law, which we review de novo. See Keener v. Keener, 278 Va. 435, 442, 682 S.E.2d 545, 548 (2009) ([A]pplying the language of a written document to an undisputed fact [is] a pure question of law, subject to review de novo on appeal.); Horner v. Department of Mental Health, 268 Va. 187, 192, 597 S.E.2d 202, 204 (2004) (Statutory interpretation presents a pure question of law subject to de novo review by this Court.). Second, Riverside asserts that the circuit court erred in sustaining the Trustee's demurrer to its claim requesting an equitable accounting. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of facts alleged in pleadings, not the strength of proof. Glazebrook v. Board of Supervisors, 266 Va. 550, 554, 587 S.E.2d 589, 591 (2003). A trial court's judgment sustaining a demurrer is also a question of law and thus reviewed de novo. Id.