Lee v. Swain
291 Ga. 799
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Eloise Collins died 12/10/2006; Swain (goddaughter) petitioned in 7/2007 to probate two documents as Collins' will; documents: an unwitnessed 1999 letter and a partially completed, properly witnessed commercial will form that did not specify distributions; Lee (cousins) challenged validity; trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for Lee’s opponents; on appeal, this Court previously held a factual question remained as to whether combined documents could form a valid will; on remand, a jury found the two instruments expressed Collins' true Last Will and Testament; Lee appealed on sufficiency of judgment/directed verdict, jury instructions on codicils, and requested instructions; this Court affirms the jury verdict and denial of summary judgment/directed verdict.
- The case proceeded to a trial where the jury found the two documents constituted Collins' will; Lee moved for summary judgment and a directed verdict which were denied; under Georgia law, once a jury has rendered a verdict, denial of summary judgment is moot.
- The Court applied the standard that testamentary intent is gleaned from the whole instrument and surrounding circumstances; Swain’s testimony and attesting witnesses supported the finding that Collins intended the two documents to express her disposal scheme and that they were presented together for attestation.
- The trial court’s charge on codicils was deemed harmless given the lack of evidence of a codicil and the trial court’s general instruction on will construction; multiple requested charges regarding incorporation by reference and other codicil nuances were found not error because they were not supported by Georgia law or sufficiently tailored to the facts.
- Swain’s motion for Rule 6 sanctions for frivolous appeal was denied as not clearly frivolous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of summary judgment/directed verdict was proper | Lee argues for summary judgment/directed verdict. | Swain argues evidence supported the jury verdict. | Denial proper; evidence supported finding of a valid will. |
| Whether the codicil instruction was error | Lee claims improper codicil instruction lacking trial evidence. | Instruction harmless; no undue emphasis. | Harmless error; no reversal. |
| Whether refusals to give incorporation-by-reference and other charges were error | Lee sought charges on incorporation by reference and codicil specifics. | Requested charges not applicable; general charge sufficiently covered law. | No reversible error; charges properly refused. |
| Whether the dosage of codicil identification and unequvocal identification requirements were properly addressed | Lee argued for stricter identification of codicils. | General charge already encompassed identification requirements. | No error; adequately covered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swain v. Lee, 287 Ga. 825 (Ga. 2010) (held genuine issue of material fact whether documents read together could form a will; remand for trial)
- Kicklighter v. Woodward, 267 Ga. 157 (Ga. 1996) (summary-judgment moot after jury verdict)
- Patterson-Fowlkes v. Chancey, 291 Ga. 601 (Ga. 2012) (standard for affirming directed verdict when evidence supports verdict)
- Sullivan v. Sullivan, 273 Ga. 130 (Ga. 2000) (instructions read as a whole; harmless error if not misleading)
- Delson v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 295 Ga. App. 84 (Ga. App. 2008) (judicial charge not reversible for immaterial clarity issues)
- Coile v. Gamble, 270 Ga. 521 (Ga. 1999) (refusal to charge not error if substantially covered in general charge)
- Honeycutt v. Honeycutt, 284 Ga. 42 (Ga. 2008) (codicil identification by date and provisions implies republication; not applicable here)
- Fowler Properties, Inc. v. Dowland, 282 Ga. 76 (Ga. 2007) (substantial coverage principle for jury instructions)