This аppeal is from the probate court’s grant of summary judgment to the propounder of a will on all issues raised in the сaveat. For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
Helen B. Quarterman executed a will on May 25, 1989, and died on January 4, 1990, survived by hеr two sons, appellant Kenneth Quarterman and appellee Alan Quarterman. On March 13, 1990, Alan, as the named executor of his mother’s estate, filed a petition to probate her last will and testament. On March 23, 1990, Kenneth filed a caveat to the petition alleging that his mother did not freely and voluntarily execute the will because 1) she lacked the capacity to make a will, and 2) Alan exercised undue influence over her. Alan moved for summary judgment on August 26, 1996, which was grаnted on October 22, 1996.
1. Kenneth Quarterman contends there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his mother lаcked testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will. Ms. Quarterman possessed the mental capacity to make a will if she understood that a will had the effect of disposing of her property at the time of her dеath, was capaIble of remembering generally what property was subject to disposition by will and remembering those persons related to her, and was capable of expressing an intelligent scheme of disposition.
Arnau v. Cochran,
Kenneth’s affidavit asserts that his mother had a history of erratic behavior and mental treatment creating аn issue of fact regarding her mental capacity at the time she executed the will. However, assuming that the avermеnts upon which he relies disclose behavior which would support a finding of incapacity, those averments relate to a period of time roughly 15 to 30 years prior to the execution of the will and shed no light upon Ms. Quarterman’s testamentary capacity at the time she executed the will. See Arnau, supra. His averments of her behavior nearer in time to the execution of the will do not, even under the most favorable reading, support a finding that she was unable to understand the effect of a will, was incapable of remembering what property she possessed or those persоns related to her, or that she was incapable of expressing an intelligent scheme of disposition.
2. Kenneth also contends there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Alan exercised undue influence on their mothеr during the execution of her will, contending that his own affidavit shows Alan’s control over Ms. Quarterman.
*808
Undue influence such as to invаlidate a will amounts to deception or force and coercion, operating on the testator at thе time of execution such that the testator is deprived of free agency and the will of another is substituted for her own.
Sims v. Sims, 265
Ga.
55,
56 (
Kenneth asserts that because Alan lived with their mother for the last three years of her life and prevеnted Kenneth from seeing Ms. Quarterman or speaking with her on the telephone, there is evidence of undue influence. However, Kenneth’s own affidavit reveals that he spoke with his mother on several occasions during the time Alan lived with hеr, both in and outside the presence of Alan. While Kenneth’s averments concerning access to his mother do show an opportunity to influence, see
Gray v. Alexander,
3. Kennеth also contends the court erred in ruling on the motion for summary judgment prior to the completion of discovery. He аsserts the pretrial order permitted him to file interrogatories upon Alan, which he did, and which were outstanding at the time the court granted summary judgment. The pretrial order actually reopens discovery only “on a limited basis,” allowing Kenneth tо serve requests for production of documents on Alan, and allowing Kenneth to move for the deposition of Alan “upon a showing of good cause.” The order does not contemplate interrogatories. Further, the court ruled at the hearing on the motion for summary judgment that the interrogatories were irrelevant to the motion, and Kenneth does nоt show how they were relevant.
Kenneth further argues that the court should have delayed ruling on the motion for summary judgment until ruling on his mоtion to depose Alan. However, there was no motion to depose his brother pending when summary judgment was granted.
4. Kеnneth moved to recuse the probate court judge because Kenneth had initiated a lawsuit naming the judge as defеndant. The judge ruled the motion was untimely and the supporting affidavit was insufficient, and the judge consequently neither recused himsеlf nor referred the matter to another judge. See Uniform Probate Court Rules 19.1 and 19.2.
Uniform Probate Court Rule 19.1 requires that the motion to
*809
recuse and supporting affidavit be filеd “not later than 5 days after the affiant first learned of the alleged grounds for disqualification,” and failure to do so is grounds for denial of the motion. See
Wellons v. State,
Judgment affirmed.