Gray v. Binder, 805 S.E.2d 768

Decedent Albert Bahnfleth died in 2012 leaving a 1966 will; primary devise to step‑daughter Jean (who predeceased him) included a precatory direction that she use funds for step‑grandson Steven Gray's education. All named devisees predeceased decedent; intestacy issues followed.
Administrator discovered the will, qualified in Fairfax Circuit Court, then petitioned the Commissioner of Accounts for "aid and direction" on will construction, beneficiary identity, lapse of devises, intestate heirs, and authorization to distribute consistent with assignments.
The Commissioner, without an explicit circuit court referral, held an evidentiary hearing, issued a report finding the bequest to Jean lapsed and that Gray was not a beneficiary; the circuit court confirmed the report and denied Gray relief.
Gray sought reconsideration and later challenged the Commissioner’s subject‑matter jurisdiction (relying on Parrish), arguing the Commissioner lacked authority to interpret the will and determine heirs absent a court referral; the circuit court rejected this and denied relief.
The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed whether a potential beneficiary may collaterally attack distributions by challenging the Commissioner of Accounts’ subject‑matter jurisdiction and clarified from which tribunal an appeal lies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Commissioner of Accounts had subject‑matter jurisdiction to hear a petition for aid and direction (will construction and heir determination) absent a circuit court referral	Gray: Commissioner exceeded authority; such matters invoke equitable jurisdiction of circuit court and are beyond a commissioner’s limited probate remit	Commissioner/Court: Commissioner’s role is an extension of the circuit court’s probate jurisdiction; can hear matters related to settlement of fiduciary accounts under Code §64.2‑1209	Court: Affirmed circuit court; commissioner’s proceedings are an exercise of the court’s authority to administer estates and the court reviews the commissioner’s reports (no independent jurisdictional defect)
Whether Gray’s challenge was barred by Rule 5:25 (timeliness/standing)	Gray: issue preserved; subject‑matter jurisdiction may be raised anytime	Cousins: Gray lost standing after prior final order and failed to timely object per Rule 5:25	Court: Rule 5:25 does not bar subject‑matter challenges; Gray had standing to appeal and may raise jurisdictional objections on appeal

Parrish v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 292 Va. 44 (2016) (court held that a circuit court’s jurisdiction on de novo review is limited to the jurisdiction of the lower tribunal and dismissed where lower court lacked jurisdiction)
Virginian‑Pilot Media Cos. v. Dow Jones & Co., 280 Va. 464 (2010) (subject‑matter jurisdiction challenges may be raised at any time; Rule 5:25 does not bar such claims)
Glasser & Glasser, PLC v. Jack Bays, Inc., 285 Va. 358 (2013) (review standard for questions of law and de novo review of jurisdictional issues)
Morrison v. Bestler, 239 Va. 166 (1990) (definition of subject‑matter jurisdiction as authority granted by constitution or statute)
Shipman v. Fletcher, 91 Va. 473 (1895) (historical explanation that commissioners assist the court and their work is subject to court review)
Carter’s Adm’r v. Skillman, 108 Va. 204 (1908) (Commissioners created to provide prompt, efficient settlement of fiduciary accounts)
Nicholas v. Nicholas, 169 Va. 399 (1937) (cases describing expansive supervisory role of commissioners of accounts)