Ray v. Hadaway, 811 S.E.2d 80

Decedent Jewell Penland died testate in 2007; residue of her estate was to be divided among Jim (son), Eloise (daughter), and Dorothy's son Sam, though Dorothy was excluded as a beneficiary for incapacity reasons.
Decedent co-owned several U.S. savings bonds with family members; after her death Sam redeemed bonds he had co-owned with the decedent, realizing at least $227,000.
Jim (co-executor) and Dorothy sued seeking a constructive trust over the proceeds Sam received, alleging Sam had agreed to return the bonds to decedent (so they would be part of her estate) and therefore owed and breached a fiduciary duty.
Dorothy died during litigation, leaving Sam as her sole heir; the trial court granted summary judgment to Sam and Eloise holding Dorothy’s death mooted Jim’s constructive-trust claim because the funds ended up with Dorothy’s heir (Sam).
On appeal, the court considered (1) whether Dorothy’s death mooted the estate’s constructive-trust claim, and (2) whether genuine issues of material fact exist on the existence and breach of a fiduciary duty by Sam.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dorothy’s death mooted a request to impose a constructive trust in favor of the decedent’s estate	Jim: The request was for a trust for the decedent’s estate, not Dorothy; estate title would be affected and could be used to pay estate claims before distribution	Sam/Eloise: Dorothy’s death made the claim moot because any trust would have benefited Dorothy and her heir (Sam), so proceeds ended up in the correct hands	Court: Not moot — constructive trust sought for decedent’s estate; proceeds would be estate property first and could be subject to estate claims or expenses before distribution, so Dorothy’s death does not render claim abstract
Whether Sam owed a fiduciary duty to the decedent regarding the bonds	Jim: Sam held bonds at decedent’s request, agreed to return them to her so they would become estate assets; that relationship supports a fiduciary/confidential relationship	Sam: (Implicit) He was sole owner after decedent’s death and acted within his rights in cashing bonds; no fiduciary duty or enforceable obligation to transfer	Court: Reversed summary judgment — evidence construed for non-movant creates genuine issues of material fact on existence of fiduciary duty, breach, and damages; jury must decide

Whiten v. Murray, 267 Ga. App. 417 (2004) (summary-judgment standards and equity jurisdiction in trust claims)
Scarbrough Group v. Worley, 290 Ga. 234 (2011) (definition and scope of mootness)
Morrison v. Morrison, 284 Ga. 112 (2008) (constructive trust may be imposed for intentional breach of fiduciary duty)
Bienert v. Dickerson, 276 Ga. App. 621 (2005) (elements of a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim)
Douglas v. Bigley, 278 Ga. App. 117 (2006) (existence of confidential/fiduciary relationship is generally a factual question for the jury)
Graham v. Patton, 231 Ga. 391 (1973) (residuary legacy rules and estate liabilities affecting distributions)