Thank you, David and Vince, for the swift answers.  (Bonus points for
making me feel like my best guess was more or less correct)

Is it correct to presume that these "formalities" could become a bit more
contentious if, for example, the guardian of the minor heirs pushed back on
some point?  (Several of these estates involve a great deal of real estate
holdings, and also in some cases enslaved people as property, and I can
imagine instances in which one party would wish the estate to sell off
either a parcel of land or perhaps some of the enslaved people, to meet
some expense of the estate, while another party would want those assets to
remain intact and have costs meant some other way, say through sale of
stocks.)

-Lois

Lois Leveen, Ph.D.
she/her/hers
Virginia Humanities Fellow
Library of Virginia
800 East Broad Street
Richmond, VA 23219


On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 11:43 AM David Talley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> It's got something to do with the formalities of the court.  Everything
> has to be filed as "somebody vs. somebody", even if everybody agrees on how
> the case should be settled.  You typically see divisions like "heirs who
> live in state" vs. "heirs who live out of state" or "adult heirs" vs.
> "minor heirs".  Sometimes the bill of complaint and the reply are even
> written on the same piece of paper by the same lawyer.
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
> https://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum
> and Library Services (IMLS).
>

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
https://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

This list is made possible by a grant from the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS).