Justia Georgia Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Harvey Strother, who was domiciled in Georgia, bequeathed a Florida condominium to his long time mistress, Anne Melican, but prior to his death, he entered into a contract to sell the condominium. Although Strother died before the closing date, the condominium was nevertheless eventually sold pursuant to the agreement he had entered into before he died. When Melican filed an action to collect the proceeds from the sale, the executor and trustee of the testamentary marital trust and the Strother's grandson and beneficiary under the will, filed a response as caveators to the will. At issue was whether the bequest of the real property in question had been adeemed based on the sale and whether Melican therefore was not entitled to the proceeds of the sale. The court held that pursuant to Fla. Stat. 732.606(2)(a), Melican, as the specific devisee of the Florida condominium under the will, was entitled to the proceeds from the sale after Strother's death, as these proceeds had not yet been paid to decedent before he died.

Husband and wife executed a will in 1980, which was expressly identified as being "joint and mutual," bequeathing all of their property to each other as the survivor in fee simple and at the death of the survivor, the residue of the estate was to be divided equally among husband's two children, David and Darrell, and wife's two children, Deana and Diane. After husband died in 2005, wife probated the 1980 will, became the executor, and conveyed husband's estate to herself. In November 2005, wife executed another will which could, at her death, leave 20% of the estate to appellant, Deana, and the residue to the children of Deana and Diane. Deana then obtained wife's power of attorney and conveyed all of her mother's real estate to her two children and to appellee, Diane's child. When wife died in 2008, Deana offered the 2005 will for probate and Diane filed a caveat and also sought to petition the 1980 will as the last will and testament. The court held that the trial court did not err when it applied the law in place before the 1998 probate code was adopted to determine whether husband and wife had a contract not to revoke the 1980 will; when it concluded that the 1980 will was joint and mutual and that husband and wife had an enforceable contract not to revoke the 1980 will; when it did not in fact find that the fee simple conveyance to wife was a marital trust; when it made no rulings as to whether wife's 2005 will was a contract, and as such, that issue could not be raised on appeal; and when the 1980 will specifically provided that the residue of the survivor's estate was to be divided equally among the four children. Accordingly, the court affirmed the trial court's order that the 1980 will would be specifically enforced by equity.