## Facts

- Leila Wilson Spicer died in 1968 leaving a 1966 holographic will.
- The will devised her entire estate to her sister, Anne Beecher Wilson, “to be disposed of as already agreed between us,” and named Anne as executor.
- Leila’s husband, Meade T. Spicer, Jr., was her sole heir at law if the estate passed by intestacy.
- Anne died before Leila’s estate administration was completed; Russell Alton Wright qualified as administrator d.b.n.c.t.a. and sought construction of the will in circuit court.
- Extrinsic evidence showed Leila and Anne had a close relationship and Leila trusted Anne’s judgment, but did not establish specific beneficiaries, trust terms, or a definite distribution plan.

## Issues

1. Whether the phrase “to be disposed of as already agreed between us,” in a devise to a person who is both executor and legatee, creates an enforceable express trust or merely expresses a nonbinding wish.
2. If an express trust was intended but is indefinite, whether the devise fails and results in a resulting trust for the testator’s heir at law.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the circuit court’s decree.
- The court held the disputed phrase was precatory and did not impose a legally enforceable duty on the sister.
- Because no express trust was created, the sister took the estate absolutely in fee simple, free of any trust.
- With no express trust, there was no basis for a resulting trust in favor of the husband as heir at law.

## Legal Principles

- Precatory words in a will do not create a trust unless the testator clearly manifests an intent to impose a legal obligation on the recipient to dispose of property in a specific manner.
- When the recipient is both executor and legatee, language that might appear directive in an executor-only context is less likely to be construed as mandatory absent clear trust-creating intent.
- Extrinsic evidence may aid in construing ambiguous testamentary language but cannot supply missing trust essentials or convert nonbinding language into a legal duty without proof of definite beneficiaries and terms.
- A resulting trust based on failure of an express trust requires an express trust to exist in the first instance; where no express trust is created, the devise stands as an outright grant.

## Conclusion

The court construed the will’s reference to an “already agreed” disposition as an expression of confidence rather than a binding command, so the sister received the estate outright in fee simple and the husband took nothing by resulting trust or intestacy.


Spicer v. Wright, 215 Va. 520, 211 S.E.2d 79 (Va. 1975)