Davison v. Hines
291 Ga. 434
Ga.2012Background
- Trial court ruled 2002 Will and 2002 Revocable Trust invalid due to undue influence; jury so found after November 2010 trial.
- Mr. Hines executed a 2001 Will leaving most to his wife for life, then to his sons after her death.
- In January 2002, Mr. Hines created the 2002 Will and the Thomas McComb Hines Revocable Trust to favor Davisons.
- Davisons moved Mr. Hines to their home, isolated him from his sons, and involved a lawyer to draft the 2002 documents.
- Davison documentary control included a power of attorney enabling self-benefitting transfers (check writings in 2002).
- Probate Court admitted the 2002 Will to solemn form probate; Superior Court consolidated Will and Trust claims and eventually tried undue influence claims by jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2002 Will/Trust the product of undue influence? | Davisons occupied a confidential relationship and steered planning. | No undue influence; testator acted freely. | Yes, jury verdict supported undue influence. |
| Did Probate Court lack jurisdiction over the Trust affecting the Superior Court’s authority? | Trust issues should be exclusive to probate court. | Trust issues pending in civil action; proper consolidation. | No error; Superior Court acted within its jurisdiction. |
| Were the $100,000 and $150,000 checks admissible evidence? | Evidence of state of mind near Will execution relevant to influence. | Evidence of self-dealing and control admissible. | Admissible; no abuse of discretion. |
| Was it error to limit defense arguments about capacity and fraud? | Trial court prevented arguing prior summary judgments implied conclusions. | Court cannot express opinions about proved issues; mischaracterizations barred. | No reversible error; limits proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathis v. Hammond, 268 Ga. 158, 486 S.E.2d 356 (Ga. 1997) (undue influence issue for factfinder)
- Bean v. Wilson, 283 Ga. 511, 661 S.E.2d 518 (Ga. 2008) (confidential relationship and influence in will contests)
- Dyer v. Souther, 272 Ga. 263, 528 S.E.2d 242 (Ga. 2000) (undue influence may be shown by circumstantial evidence)
- Akin v. Patton, 235 Ga. 51, 218 S.E.2d 802 (Ga. 1975) (state of mind evidence near will execution)
- Dorsey v. Kennedy, 284 Ga. 464, 668 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 2008) (evidentiary rulings on relevance and discretion)