Preview:

Final Copy 290 Ga. 307 S11A1315. PRINE v. BLANTON et al.

HUNSTEIN, Chief Justice. Debra Prine filed a caveat challenging the validity of her father's will on the grounds that he lacked testamentary capacity and was operating under undue influence. The probate court ordered the probate of the will in solemn form, and the superior court granted summary judgment to the estate. Because the record shows there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding the lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence at the time the testator executed his will, we affirm. Testator Melvin H. Blanton's 1990 will and family trust divided the majority of his assets equally among his four surviving children and a granddaughter who was the child of his deceased daughter. In August 2008, Blanton met with his attorney and directed him to change his will and trust to exclude Prine, his one surviving daughter. On September 17, 2008, while in the hospital, Blanton executed a new will and second amendment to the trust that left most of his property to his three sons through the Blanton Trust and

excluded Prine as a beneficiary. The following day, Blanton was placed in intensive care. He was discharged three weeks later to hospice care and died in February 2009. Blanton's sons and co-executors, Timmy M. Blanton and Greg Blanton, filed a petition to probate the will in solemn form. Following a bench trial, the probate court found that Melvin Blanton was of sufficient sound and disposing mind and was not subjected to undue or illegal influence at the time he executed his will and trust amendment. Prine appealed to the superior court, and the executors filed a motion for summary judgment, which the superior court granted. 1. A testator possesses the mental capacity to make a will if he

understands that he is executing a document that will dispose of his property after death, is capable of remembering the property that is subject to his disposition and the persons related to him by blood and affection, and "`has sufficient intellect to enable him to have a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of his property.'" Spivey v. Spivey, 202 Ga. 644, 651 (2) (44 SE2d 224) (1947) (Citation omitted.). "[T]he controlling question . . . is whether the testator had sufficient testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will." Id. at 652.

On appeal from the grant of summary judgment, this Court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion to determine whether the record shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. OCGA

Download S11A1315. PRINE, CAVEATOR v. BLANTON et al., EXECUTORS.pdf

Georgia Law