- 9 -
Rule 60(a) requires that a case be brought "by and in the
name of the person against whom the Commissioner determined the
deficiency * * * or by and with the full descriptive name of the
fiduciary entitled to institute a case on behalf of such person."
Rule 60(c) states that the capacity of a fiduciary or other
representative to litigate in the Court shall be determined in
accordance with the law of the jurisdiction from which such
person's authority is derived. As previously mentioned, the
parties agree that Virginia law is controlling in this case.
Based upon our review of Virginia law, we conclude that a
trustee generally is a necessary party in an action brought on
behalf of a trust. Accord Mendenhall v. Douglas L. Cooper, Inc.,
387 S.E.2d 468 (Va. 1990); Raney v. Four Thirty Seven Land Co.,
357 S.E.2d 733, 736 (Va. 1987); cf. Walt Robbins, Inc. v. Damon
Corp., 348 S.E.2d 223, 226 (Va. 1986) (the trustee of an
antecedent deed of trust is a necessary party in a suit to
enforce a mechanic’s lien).
We begin by observing that the petition filed in this case
does not comply with Rule 60. In particular, Paul Jablonski
signed the petition as managing director, and the caption that he
placed on the petition identified the "Petitioner" as "FENNEL
TRUST". However, neither the caption nor the body of the
petition identified petitioner's trustee(s).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011