Court Opinion

ID: 9477532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 06:25:31.058688+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:45:55.410055
License: Public Domain

K.K. HALL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot accept the majority’s conclusion that the income from the trust is not protected from creditors. The majority has taken a restrictive view of the trust agreement which is clearly proscribed by Virginia case law. For this reason, I respectfully dissent.
In my view, the intent of the settlor is clear from the four corners of the document. I am unpersuaded by the majority’s attempt to take one section of the trust agreement out of context to defeat the settlor’s intentions. I am cognizant of the fact that the trust provision regarding the income does not specifically state that it is to be used for support and maintenance but rather that it is to be paid directly to Rup-ley or applied for his benefit. Although this provision does not fit within the precise language of Va. Code § 55-19, it does not necessarily render the spendthrift provision invalid as to income. The Virginia Supreme Court has held that this provision should be construed liberally and not restrictively, especially if the settlor’s intent can be adduced from the instrument. Moreover, intent may be implied from the instrument itself. Alderman v. Virginia Trust Co., 181 Va. 497, 25 S.E.2d 333 (1943).
Article 111(f), following the sections relating to income and principal, clearly indicates the intent of the settlor to provide a spendthrift trust.1 Furthermore, the language of the instrument need not follow the precise terms of the statute. Roundtree v. Lane, 155 F.2d 471 (4th Cir.1946).
For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the district court and grant summary judgment for the appellant.

. The language of Article 111(f) reads in relevant part "nor shall any principal or income in any manner be subject to or liable in the hands of the Trustee for the debts, contracts, obligations, liabilities or engagements of any beneficiary, or be subject to any assignment, or any other voluntary or involuntary alienation or disposition.” (Emphasis added). This statement can only be taken to mean that the settlor intended that the income, as well as the principal, should be protected from the beneficiary’s creditors.