Suzanne Giller v. Robert Slosberg
341 Ga. App. 581
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Elder father revoked an existing POA, executed a new POA, and changed beneficiaries on certain financial accounts as part of estate-planning; his son Robert Slosberg sued sisters Suzanne Giller and Lynne Seidner alleging diminished capacity and undue influence.
- Giller and Seidner counterclaimed for declaratory relief, defamation, tortious interference, and equitable relief.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court found no evidence of incapacity or undue influence and granted summary judgment to Giller and Seidner on document validity, but granted summary judgment to Slosberg on defendants’ tortious interference and defamation counterclaims.
- Slosberg appealed the dismissal of his undue-influence and related claims (A17A0091); Giller and Seidner cross-appealed the grant of summary judgment to Slosberg on certain tortious-interference claims (A17A0092).
- The Court of Appeals held the undue-influence issue was for the trier of fact given circumstantial evidence (memory impairment, isolation, statements of being "brainwashed," actions taken by sisters), reversed the declaratory-judgment ruling, and split the tortious-interference rulings (some reversed, some affirmed).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Slosberg) | Defendant's Argument (Giller/Seidner) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on undue influence/capacity | Evidence of father’s memory impairment, isolation, and sisters’ efforts created factual dispute; undue influence may be shown circumstantially | No evidence of incapacity or undue influence at or near execution; trial court limited review to execution times and credited defendants’ evidence | Reversed: undue-influence question is for the trier of fact; summary judgment improperly granted to defendants |
| Validity/declaratory judgment as to documents | Documents may be product of undue influence/incapacity; declaratory relief premature given factual disputes | Documents are valid and not the product of undue influence or incapacity; sought judicial declaration | Reversed: declaratory judgment depended on erroneous summary disposition of undue-influence issue |
| Tortious interference with IRA and trust accounts | Slosberg acted without privilege and with malice in challenging/undermining sisters’ administration | Actions were privileged or justified; no malice/stranger status shown | Reversed: improper to grant summary judgment for Slosberg because validity of account changes (and thus privilege/malice) is for trier of fact |
| Tortious interference with agency account | (Plaintiff) Alleged interference with account administration | (Defendants) Slosberg challenged administration improperly | Affirmed for Slosberg: he is a beneficiary (not a stranger) and cannot be liable for tortious interference |
Key Cases Cited
- Cobb v. Garner, 158 Ga. App. 110 (exercise of control destroying free agency defines undue influence)
- Simmons v. Norton, 290 Ga. 223 (undue influence must operate on mind at time of execution)
- Skelton v. Skelton, 251 Ga. 631 (undue influence often shown circumstantially; broad range of evidence)
- Knox v. Knox, 213 Ga. 677 (facts before and after execution may be considered in undue-influence analysis)
- Mathis v. Hammond, 268 Ga. 158 (questions of undue influence are for the trier of fact)
- Tribeca Homes, LLC v. Marathon Inv. Corp., 322 Ga. App. 596 (elements of tortious interference)
- Atlanta Mkt. Ctr. Mgmt. Co. v. McLane, 269 Ga. 604 (one who benefits from a contract is not a stranger and cannot be liable for tortious interference)