A. Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this chapter governs the duties and powers of a trustee, relations among trustees, and the rights and interests of a beneficiary.
B. The terms of a trust prevail over any provision of this chapter except:
1. The requirements for creating a trust;
2. Subject to subsection I of § 64.2-756 and §§ 64.2-779.32 and 64.2-779.34, the duty of a trustee to act in good faith and in accordance with the terms and purposes of the trust and the interests of the beneficiaries;
3. The requirement that a trust and its terms be for the benefit of its beneficiaries, and that the trust have a purpose that is lawful, not contrary to public policy, and possible to achieve;
4. The power of the court to modify or terminate a trust under §§ 64.2-728 through 64.2-734;
5. The effect of a spendthrift provision and the rights of certain creditors and assignees to reach a trust as provided in Article 5 (§ 64.2-742 et seq.);
6. The power of the court under § 64.2-755 to require, dispense with, or modify or terminate a bond;
7. The power of the court under subsection B of § 64.2-761 to adjust a trustee's compensation specified in the terms of the trust that is unreasonably low or high;
8. The effect of an exculpatory term under § 64.2-799;
9. The rights under §§ 64.2-801 through 64.2-804 of a person other than a trustee or beneficiary;
10. Periods of limitation for commencing a judicial proceeding; and
11. The power of the court to take such action and exercise such jurisdiction as may be necessary in the interests of justice.
2005, c. 935, § 55-541.05; 2007, c. 216; 2012, c. 614; 2020, c. 768.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2014–2024 · leading case:
Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 777 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2015).
Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 777 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2015).
· cites it 44× “Initially, I must address the sons’ assignment of cross-error in which they assert that the September 2012 amendment violates Code §§ 64.2-703(B) and 64.2-777(B). This is a threshold issue because it broadens the scope of the circuit court’s review of the trustee’s decision.”
Burton v. Dolph, 89 Va. Cir. 101 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2014).
· cites it 7× “This particular issue is controlled by Virginia Code § 64.2-703. That provision dictates that, in certain enumerated circumstances, the terms of the trust agreement itself will prevail over statutory provisions: “Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this…”
Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC v. E. Point Trust Co., No. 2:23-cv-10166 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2023).
“Code § 64.2-703(B)(2), (3) (requiring “that a trust and its terms be for the benefit of its beneficiaries, and that the trust have a purpose that is lawful, not contrary to public policy, and possible to achieve”); see also id.”
Stavros P. Galiotos, Individually, etc. v. Tasos A. Galiotos, Individually, etc., No. 0068241 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024).
“” Code § 64.2-703(B)(2).10 In other words, “notwithstanding a broad grant of discretion” to the trustee, the “court is vested with the authority to evaluate whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the terms and purposes of the trust and in the best interests of the…”
Paul Galiotos, Individually, etc. v. Tasos A. Galiotos, Individually, etc., No. 0077241 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024).
“” Code § 64.2-703(B)(2).10 In other words, “notwithstanding a broad grant of discretion” to the trustee, the “court is vested with the authority to evaluate whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the terms and purposes of the trust and in the best interests of the…”
Va. Code Ann. § 64.2-703(A): 1 case
Burton v. Dolph, 89 Va. Cir. 101 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2014).
“This particular issue is controlled by Virginia Code § 64.2-703. That provision dictates that, in certain enumerated circumstances, the terms of the trust agreement itself will prevail over statutory provisions: “Except as otherwise provided in the terms of the trust, this…”
Va. Code Ann. § 64.2-703(B): 1 case
Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 777 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2015).
“Initially, I must address the sons’ assignment of cross-error in which they assert that the September 2012 amendment violates Code §§ 64.2-703(B) and 64.2-777(B). This is a threshold issue because it broadens the scope of the circuit court’s review of the trustee’s decision.”
Va. Code Ann. § 64.2-703(B)(11): 1 case
Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 777 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2015).
“Initially, I must address the sons’ assignment of cross-error in which they assert that the September 2012 amendment violates Code §§ 64.2-703(B) and 64.2-777(B). This is a threshold issue because it broadens the scope of the circuit court’s review of the trustee’s decision.”
Va. Code Ann. § 64.2-703(B)(2): 4 cases
Rafalko v. Georgiadis, 777 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2015).
“Initially, I must address the sons’ assignment of cross-error in which they assert that the September 2012 amendment violates Code §§ 64.2-703(B) and 64.2-777(B). This is a threshold issue because it broadens the scope of the circuit court’s review of the trustee’s decision.”
Pitt McGehee Palmer Bonanni & Rivers PC v. E. Point Trust Co., No. 2:23-cv-10166 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 16, 2023).
“Code § 64.2-703(B)(2), (3) (requiring “that a trust and its terms be for the benefit of its beneficiaries, and that the trust have a purpose that is lawful, not contrary to public policy, and possible to achieve”); see also id.”
Stavros P. Galiotos, Individually, etc. v. Tasos A. Galiotos, Individually, etc., No. 0068241 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024).
“” Code § 64.2-703(B)(2).10 In other words, “notwithstanding a broad grant of discretion” to the trustee, the “court is vested with the authority to evaluate whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the terms and purposes of the trust and in the best interests of the…”
Paul Galiotos, Individually, etc. v. Tasos A. Galiotos, Individually, etc., No. 0077241 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 30, 2024).
“” Code § 64.2-703(B)(2).10 In other words, “notwithstanding a broad grant of discretion” to the trustee, the “court is vested with the authority to evaluate whether the trustee’s actions were consistent with the terms and purposes of the trust and in the best interests of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.