Rabun v. Rabun, 341 Ga. App. 878

Background

Decedent died testate in 2014; his will gave his wife (the widow) a life estate in the marital residence and devised the remainder and other assets to his stepson Timothy (the executor).
Probate court awarded the widow year’s support: “all of the decedent’s interest in the household furniture and furnishings, appliances, and all other personal property located at the marital residence.”
Estate assets included multiple SunTrust accounts (a three-party account with decedent, executor, and widow; a two-party account with decedent and executor; and an individual POD account payable to the executor) and several life-insurance/annuity policies naming the executor as beneficiary.
The widow sued to impose a constructive trust over funds and life-insurance/annuity proceeds, alleging decedent transferred assets to the executor intending the executor to care for the widow.
Executor moved for summary judgment asserting legal ownership of the accounts and that beneficiary designations and account titles created no enforceable duty to support the widow; he also sought return of certain personal property in the widow’s possession.
Trial court granted summary judgment for the executor (no constructive trust) and ordered return of certain items; the Court of Appeals affirmed the no-constructive-trust ruling but reversed as to the personal-property return due to a factual dispute about year’s support coverage.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether circumstances created a constructive trust over transferred assets	Decedent told witnesses he transferred assets to executor so executor would care for widow; thus executor holds funds in constructive trust for widow	Account titles and beneficiary designations made executor legal owner/beneficiary and created no equitable duty to support widow	No constructive trust; summary judgment affirmed (hearsay statements excluded; without them no genuine issue)
Admissibility of decedent’s out-of-court statements under residual hearsay exception (OCGA §24-8-807)	Widow: statements are admissible under residual exception because declarant is unavailable and statements are trustworthy and probative	Executor: statements are inadmissible hearsay and lack probative value	Trial court did not abuse discretion excluding the testimony; Court of Appeals affirms exclusion
Whether summary judgment was proper without hearing transcript showing court’s evidentiary rulings	Widow: burden to show trial court abused discretion in excluding evidence; court must have considered testimony	Executor: exclusion appropriate; no transcript means appellate record supports trial court	Affirmed — appellant failed to show abuse of discretion or that excluded hearsay would create a genuine issue
Whether items in widow’s possession were covered by probate year’s support award	Widow: items were part of household goods awarded as year’s support and thus not subject to return	Executor: items not included in year’s support and should be returned as estate property	Reversed as to personal property: genuine factual dispute exists whether items were included in year’s support, so summary judgment ordering return was error

Key Cases Cited

Robertson v. Robertson, 333 Ga. App. 864 (App. Ct.) (distinguishing when equity jurisdiction for implied trusts is invoked)
Ansley v. Raczka-Long, 293 Ga. 138 (Ga.) (standard for construing evidence on summary judgment)
Phinazee v. Interstate Nationalease, 237 Ga. App. 39 (Ga. App.) (affirmation rule: appellate court may affirm for any reason)
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Weekes, 241 Ga. 169 (Ga.) (definition and application of constructive trust principles)
Hornbuckle v. State, 300 Ga. 750 (Ga.) (explaining former necessity hearsay exception and new Evidence Code timing)
Maloof v. MARTA, 330 Ga. App. 763 (Ga. App.) (appellate review of trial court evidentiary rulings)
Urban v. Lemley, 232 Ga. App. 259 (Ga. App.) (summary judgment proper where excluded hearsay would not create genuine issue)