A recent decision by the Court of Appeals of Virginia clarifies who should receive a significant portion of an estate left by Florence Rochelle Joseph, resolving uncertainty about whether the funds were meant for an individual or an institution. The case centers on the interpretation of Joseph’s handwritten will and addresses broader questions about how ambiguous language in such documents should be resolved.
The appeal was filed by Jonathan Palevsky, who argued that he was personally entitled to a 15 percent share of Joseph’s estate as described in her will. The complaint was brought before the Circuit Court of the City of Alexandria against Baltimore City Community College and other parties following Joseph’s death on August 23, 2022.
Florence Rochelle Joseph wrote her will without legal assistance, naming six beneficiaries and directing her executor to sell her possessions and distribute the proceeds. The fourth clause in her will became the focus of dispute: “Jonathan Palevsky, WBJC-FM., Voice of Baltimore Community College Radio, as the source of my quality musical entertainment. I leave the amount to be used in his discretion.” Both Palevsky and Baltimore City Community College (the operator and sole licensee of WBJC-FM) claimed entitlement to this bequest.
After Joseph’s death, her executor petitioned for judicial guidance under Code § 8.01-184 to determine whether Palevsky or Baltimore City Community College should receive the funds. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The circuit court denied both motions, finding that extrinsic evidence was needed due to ambiguity in the will’s language.
During trial proceedings, testimony from Joseph’s husband William Poggenburg indicated that she had few relatives and wished to use her estate for charitable purposes related to music and the arts. Poggenburg stated that while his wife appreciated Palevsky’s work at WBJC-FM, she never expressed intent to leave money directly to him but rather wanted it “for the benefit of the station.” Palevsky testified about his role at WBJC-FM and acknowledged he had not discussed estate matters with Joseph.
The circuit court issued a letter opinion after reviewing all evidence. It found that when considering both the text and external testimony, there was a clear pattern: most clauses in Joseph’s will left funds to institutions subject to an individual’s discretion rather than giving directly to individuals for personal use. For example, similar clauses directed gifts to Johns Hopkins University Hospital (with Dr. Riley named), Alexandria Barrett Branch Library (with Linda Wesson named), and others—all structured as institutional gifts managed by trusted individuals.
The appellate opinion noted that only one clause—the second—explicitly gave assets directly to an individual (“Kenneth Ribyat…for his personal portfolio”). In contrast, clauses like those involving Johns Hopkins or Barrett Branch Library referenced institutional recipients with named contacts exercising discretion over use—not ownership—of funds.
Palevsky argued that differences in wording between clauses supported his claim as direct beneficiary; however, both courts found these distinctions insufficient given overall context and testimony regarding Joseph’s intentions. The appellate court cited established legal principles: “The ‘cardinal principle’ of will construction is that the intention of the testator controls,” referencing Larsen v. Stack (2020). When ambiguity exists—as here—courts may consider extrinsic evidence such as witness statements or draft versions.
Ultimately, both courts concluded that Ms. Joseph intended for WBJC-FM—the public radio station operated by Baltimore City Community College—to receive 15 percent of her estate proceeds under Palevsky’s discretion as program director but not for his personal benefit. As stated in summary: “Given that the language of the will was ambiguous, and extrinsic evidence demonstrated that Ms. Joseph’s will followed a general ‘charitable’ scheme…we affirm.”
The appellate panel consisted of Judges Ortiz, Raphael, and Lorish; Judge Daniel E. Ortiz authored the memorandum opinion dated March 3, 2026 (Record No. 1466-24-4). Attorneys listed include George O. Peterson (for appellant) and John P. O’Herron with Timothy A. Richard and Jennifer A. DeRose (for appellee Baltimore City Community College).
Source: 1466244_Palevsky_v_Johns_Hopkinds_Health_System_Corporation_Opinion_Virginia_Court_of_Appeals.pdf