In re Estate of Hubert, 325 Ga. App. 276

Four siblings serve as co-executors of Ruth S. Hubert’s estate and seek to equalize assets per her plan.
A 2010 mediated settlement designated an accountant to value assets and resolve open items before equalization.
The accountant produced a draft report with unresolved issues; the probate court proceeded to perform the final equalization calculations.
Appellants contend the court modified the settlement by skipping steps and applying Paragraph 2 directly, contrary to the agreement.
The court removed all four siblings as executors and awarded attorney fees to Judith Manning; bonds were required on appeal.
On appeal, the court reverses in part, remands for compliance with the settlement procedures, and affirms in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly enforced the settlement	Manning	Huberts	Remand to follow settlement procedures
Whether discounts must be removed in equalization	Huberts	Manning	Fact-intensive; remand to determine intermediate discounts
Whether interest may be imposed on certain payments	Huberts	Manning	Ambiguity resolved for overpayment interest; remand as needed
Whether removal of co-executors was appropriate	Huberts	Manning	There was good cause; removal affirmed

Anaya v. Coello, 279 Ga. App. 578 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006) (de novo review of settled-agreement enforcement when facts undisputed)
In re Estate of Huff, 287 Ga. App. 614 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (upholds appellate review of contract-interpretation claims in estate actions)
Scherer v. Testino, 291 Ga. 75 (Ga. 2012) (enforce contracts as made; cannot rewrite terms)
King Cotton v. Powers, 200 Ga. App. 549 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991) (duty to construe contracts as written)
Beale v. O'Shea, 319 Ga. App. 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (lay opinion admissibility based on familiarity with subject matter)
Ludwig v. Ludwig, 281 Ga. 724 (Ga. 2007) (trustee duties; damages requirement for fiduciary claims)