Opinion ID: 2747281
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: any or all shares of stock in Capitol Foundry of

Text: Virginia, Inc., or any successor entity thereto, which Trust A herein may own, and (ii) any or all interests Trust A may own in [certain real property]. . . . . The option shall be exercised by written notice delivered to the Trustee within ninety (90) days of the date of the second to die of [Norma] and her husband. If not exercised by such date, the option shall then terminate and expire. Within sixty (60) days of such exercise, at a mutually acceptable date, time and place (the Settlement Date), the Trustee shall convey such property so elected to [Lewis] F. Corr, Jr. by stock certificate . . . in exchange for a downpayment equal to all cash or liquid assets distributable to him pursuant to the terms of Trust A created herein and delivery of an executed promissory note in form acceptable to the Trustee for the balance of the purchase price, to be paid in equal monthly payments of principal and interest amortizing the balance of the purchase price over ten years. Section (B)(6) of the Trust Document provides that, notwithstanding the per stirpes division of all property poured over into Trust A by operation of Section (B)(3) of the Trust 9 Document, Lewis has an exclusive right and option to purchase all shares of Capitol Foundry stock that Trust A might own. To the extent shares of Capitol Foundry stock are owned by Trust A, this would allow Lewis to purchase and acquire those shares so that his siblings Nancy and Patricia, fellow beneficiaries of Trust A, would not be able to acquire those shares through the per stirpes distribution scheme set forth in Section (B)(3). However, because Lewis's purchase of these shares would put money back into Trust A, that money would be subject to the per stirpes distribution. Thus, Nancy and Patricia would ultimately receive the cash value of their shares of Capitol Foundry stock held by Trust A, just not the shares themselves. 3. Norma's Estate Planning Documents and Disposition of Norma's Shares of Capitol Foundry Stock It is important to set forth the distribution scheme of Norma's shares of Capitol Foundry stock if only Norma's estate planning documents governed this case. The Trust Document does not provide what amount, if any, of Norma's shares of Capitol Foundry stock pour over into Trust A. That document merely provides that if such property is owned by Trust A, it shall be subject to either a per stirpes division by operation of Article IV, Section (B)(3), or 10 Lewis's exclusive purchase option by operation of Article IV, Section (B)(6). On the other hand, Article VII of Norma's Will provides that her residuary estate shall pour over into Trust A. This provision means that any shares of Capitol Foundry stock that Norma owned upon her death, not subject to debts, specific bequests, or devises, and therefore forming part of Norma's residuary estate, pour over into Trust A. See Spinks v. Rice, 187 Va. 730, 740, 47 S.E.2d 424, 428 (1948) (The essential characteristic of a will is, that it operates only upon and by reason of the death of the maker. (internal quotation marks omitted)). Reading these two documents together, they operate so that pursuant to Article VII of her Will, Norma's shares of Capitol Foundry stock would pour over into Trust A upon Norma's death, and then, pursuant to Article IV, Section (B)(6) of the Trust Document, Lewis would be able to exercise his exclusive option to purchase those shares. However, the analysis does not end here because these are not the only two documents relevant to this appeal. Norma also entered into the Shareholders' Agreement in December of 2002, subsequent to executing her estate planning documents in July of 1992. This Shareholders' Agreement is a contract separate and distinct from Norma's Will. Nonetheless, the Shareholders' 11 Agreement could affect the operation of Norma's Will because, even though these two documents were not executed contemporaneously, a will and a contract are instruments that both can relate to the same subject matter – the disposition of property upon death of the owner – and simultaneously embody the testator's intent on that subject. See McAfee v. Brewer, 214 Va. 579, 581, 203 S.E.2d 129, 131 (1974) (valid contract must have mutual assent of the parties); Roller v. Shaver, 178 Va. 467, 472, 17 S.E.2d 419, 422 (1941) (valid will expresses the testator's intent). Further, it is clear from the substance of Norma's Will and the Shareholders' Agreement that these two documents operate in harmony. That is, Norma's Will created a general provision – Article VII - governing the disposition of the general residue of Norma's estate upon her death. The Shareholders' Agreement, in turn, created a specific provision – Section 3 - governing the particular disposition of Norma's shares of Capitol Foundry stock upon her death. Norma's shares are property that would fall into Norma's residuary estate because they were not otherwise specifically devised or bequeathed in Norma's Will. Although the general provision set forth in Norma's Will still has effect, the scope of its operation is necessarily limited to the extent it would govern disposition of Norma's shares of Capitol Foundry stock, which 12 is instead governed by the more specific provision set forth in the Shareholders' Agreement. Cf. Condominium Servs., Inc. v. First Owners' Ass'n of Forty Six Hundred Condominium, Inc., 281 Va. 561, 573, 709 S.E.2d 163, 170 (2011) ([A] specific provision of a contract governs over one that is more general in nature.). It is thus necessary to construe the Shareholders' Agreement to determine how it affects disposition of Norma's shares of Capitol Foundry stock, and whether that instrument is valid and enforceable.