Newton v. Lawson
313 Ga. App. 29
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Lawsons and Newton intervened in a suit by Newton for specific performance of a contract to make a will in Syble Lawson's favor, with a life estate for Newton and remainder to Jason Lawson.
- Evidence at trial centered on Syble Lawson's 2000 Will, a health care durable power of attorney, and unsigned handwritten Notes as supposed written proof of a Will Contract.
- Supreme Court of Georgia previously affirmed probate of Syble Lawson's 2004 Will and revoked the 2000 Will; the instant case uses those findings to challenge the Will Contract theory.
- Newton allegedly provided care to Syble Lawson and contributed to maintenance; he argues this formed valuable consideration for a contract to distribute her estate to him.
- Trial court found no written contract under OCGA § 53-4-30 and rejected equitable relief under OCGA §§ 23-2-131/132; judgment was in favor of Christy Lawson as executor.
- This Court affirms the trial court’s decision, holding no enforceable will contract existed under the statute and that equitable relief is unavailable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there a written will contract under OCGA § 53-4-30? | Newton/Lawsons claim 2000 Will or Notes satisfy writing/signature. | 2000 Will revoked by 2004 Will; Notes lack binding promise and proper signature. | No valid written will contract proven. |
| Can the 2000 Will or handwritten Notes serve as the writing for the contract? | 2000 Will or Notes prove contract terms. | Neither constitutes a binding contract reflecting promise in exchange for valuable consideration. | Neither the 2000 Will nor Notes meet § 53-4-30. |
| Are equitable defenses under OCGA § 23-2-131/132 available to enforce a will contract? | Equitable exceptions should permit specific performance. | Specific performance barred; statute controls; lack of possession/improvements tied to contract. | Equitable relief not available; statute governs. |
| Is Jason Lawson's claim moot or severs from Newton's contract? | Contract benefits Newton and Jason; claims inseparable. | Jason's claim fails without a valid contract; moot if contract not proven. | Jason's claim moot; no enforceable contract proven. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rushin v. Ussery, 298 Ga. App. 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (oral contracts to make a will must be definite and certain; post-1998 writings required)
- Lawson v. Lawson, 288 Ga. 37 (Ga. 2010) (2004 Will valid; 2000 Will revoked; no undue influence finding)
- Taylor v. Cureton, 196 Ga. 28 (Ga. 1943) (possession and valuable improvements must arise from the contract to avoid statute of frauds)
- Martin v. Turner, 235 Ga. 35 (Ga. 1975) (a will or codicil written pursuant to an alleged oral contract can be used to prove the contract)
- Kirk v. Lithonia Mobile Homes, 181 Ga. App. 533 (Ga. App. 1987) (signature required for a written contract; handwritten form not a substitute)