Preview:

Final Copy 289 Ga. 679 S11A0777. STEWART v. RAY. NAHMIAS, Justice. Appellant Opal Ray Stewart challenges the probate court's declaratory judgment interpreting her father's will to require equal distribution of his personal property and residual estate among his eight children. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 1. In 1989, Willie Ray, Sr. ("Ray Sr."), was injured in a truck accident for which a settlement was reached in 1995 that included monthly payments of $7,639.62 for 20 years. Stewart was appointed as his conservator. Ray Sr. died testate on December 26, 2006. His will named Stewart as executrix. In September 2007, she instructed the insurance company to deposit Ray Sr.'s annuity payments directly into her personal account to the exclusion of her seven siblings. In December 2007, Stewart finished the conservatorship and was released of her duties. In 2009, her sister, appellee Brenda Ray ("Ray"), challenged the conservatorship discharge on due process grounds. The DeKalb County Probate Court rejected Ray's challenge, and this Court affirmed that ruling. See Ray v.

Stewart, 287 Ga. 789 (700 SE2d 367) (2010). In February 2010, Ray filed this action in the Fulton County Probate Court seeking a declaratory judgment interpreting Items III and IV of Ray Sr.'s will. Item III reads in relevant part as follows: A. All of my household furniture, furnishings, paintings, objects of art, books, pictures, silverware, jewelry, clothing and other such personal effects, I give, devise and bequeath to my eight (8) children, per stirpes, to be distributed among my children as and in the manner my Executor, in his or her sole discretion, determines to be fair and reasonable. . . . In the event that any person to whom a particular item of personal property is to be left should predecease me, or does not desire to receive such item, such item shall either become a part of my residuary estate or shall be distributed as my Executrix determines, using her best judgment, which shall be binding on all of my heirs and beneficiaries. Item IV reads as follows: All the rest, residue and remainder of my property, I give, devise and bequeath to my eight (8) children, per stirpes, at the discretion of my Executor, to be divided among them as and in the manner in which my Executor in his or her sole discretion determines to be fair and reasonable. If any of my children do not survive me, his or her share of my property shall pass to his or her lineal descendants, if any, per stirpes. If a child predeceases me without leaving lineal descendants, his or her share shall pass to my surviving children. Ray also moved to temporarily suspend the annuity payments until the declaratory judgment was issued. Ray attached a February 2010 annuity

2

payment history showing that the payments made directly to Stewart following Ray Sr.'s death amounted to $282,665.94, and she alleged that the future annuity payments would total $481,296.06. The probate court suspended the annuity payments until further order. After a non-evidentiary hearing, the court ruled in favor of Ray, finding that Ray Sr. intended for his eight children to share his personal property and residual estate equally under Items III and IV of the will. Stewart appealed. 2. The primary objective in will interpretation is to ascertain the testator's intent. See OCGA

Download S11A0777. STEWART, EXTRX. v. RAY.pdf

Georgia Law