Prine v. Blanton
290 Ga. 307
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Debra Prine challenged her father Melvin Blanton’s will on capacity and undue influence grounds.
- Probate court ordered probate in solemn form; superior court granted summary judgment for the estate.
- The record shows no genuine issue of material fact on lack of capacity or undue influence at execution.
- Blanton executed a 2008 will and trust amendment excluding Prine, while hospitalized.
- The will and trust were ultimately probated after bench proceedings; the court affirmed summary judgment for the propounders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there capacity to execute the will and amendments? | Prine contends lack of testamentary capacity at execution. | Blanton’s capacity was shown by witnesses and medical statements. | No genuine issue; capacity established as a matter of law. |
| Was there undue influence at the time of execution? | Prine asserts coercion or manipulation | No coercion; testers acted freely and voluntarily. | No genuine issue; undue influence not proven. |
| Is the neurologist’s post-execution report admissible to prove capacity under OCGA 24-3-18? | Report supports lack of capacity; should be admitted. | Report not admissible as narrative medical narrative form. | Not admissible under OCGA 24-3-18. |
| Do lay-witness affidavits create a genuine issue of material fact on capacity/undue influence? | Lay observations show confusion/illness around execution. | Evidence shows capacity and lack of coercion; lay affidavits insufficient. | Insufficient to create issue; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment solely on capacity/undue influence grounds? | Summary judgment improperly disregarded conflicting evidence. | Record shows no material facts in dispute; correct grant. | Affirmed summary judgment for propounders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spivey v. Spivey, 202 Ga. 644 (Ga. 1947) (capacity elements for testamentary capacity)
- Ashford v. Van Horne, 276 Ga. 636 (Ga. 2003) (prima facie showing of capacity via witnesses)
- Campbell v. The Landings Assn., Inc., 289 Ga. 617 (Ga. 2011) (summary judgment standards in will cases)
- McGee v. Ingram, 264 Ga. 649 (Ga. 1994) (genuine issue standard on testamentary capacity)
- Bohler v. Hicks, 120 Ga. 800 (Ga. 1904) (undue influence requires coercion)
- Boland v. Aycock, 191 Ga. 327 (Ga. 1940) (undue influence must operate on mind at execution)
- Cornelius v. Crosby, 243 Ga. 26 (Ga. 1979) (naming one relative over another insufficient for undue influence)
- Strong v. Holden, 287 Ga. 482 (Ga. 2010) (capacity two days before death may suffice)
- Kievman v. Kievman, 260 Ga. 853 (Ga. 1991) (evidence of illness before execution assessed for capacity)
- Quarterman v. Quarterman, 268 Ga. 807 (Ga. 1997) (undue influence when there was coercion or domination)
- Sims v. Sims, 265 Ga. 55 (Ga. 1995) (no coercion proven by surrounding circumstances)
- Bell v. Austin, 278 Ga. 844 (Ga. 2005) (medical reports must be in narrative form under OCGA 24-3-18)
- Lott v. Ridley, 285 Ga. App. 513 (Ga. App. 2007) (unedited neurologist records lack narrative form)