Chester v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 May 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. S09A0176.,S09A0176. |
| Citation | 677 S.E.2d 128,285 Ga. 401 |
| Parties | CHESTER et al. v. SMITH. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Bryant & Oakes, Craig S. Oakes, Suwanee, for appellants.
Caudell & Hotard, T. Gabriel Hotard, Jr., Cornelia, for appellee.
Phil and Mary Chester (hereinafter collectively "Chester"), propounders of the Will of Sara Elizabeth Campbell, filed a petition to probate Campbell's Will in the Probate Court of Habersham County on May 23, 2006. On June 20, 2006, Campbell's brothers, Russell and Ray Smith (hereinafter collectively "Smith"), filed an objection to the probate of the Will. Following a hearing, the probate court rejected Campbell's Will for probate, finding that the witnesses to the Will had not signed it in Campbell's presence as required by OCGA § 53-4-20(b) (). Chester appealed to the Superior Court of Habersham County, and Smith moved for summary judgment, arguing that Campbell's Will should be rejected as a matter of law because the Will had not been properly executed. Following a hearing, in an order dated March 18, 2008, the Superior Court initially denied Smith's motion for summary judgment. However, upon reconsideration, ten days later the court issued an order granting summary judgment to Smith, finding that Campbell's Will had not been properly executed. Chester appeals from this ruling. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
"On appeal from the grant of summary judgment this Court conducts a de novo review of the evidence to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law." (Citations omitted.) Home Builders Assn. of Savannah v. Chatham County, 276 Ga. 243, 245(1), 577 S.E.2d 564 (2003); OCGA § 9-11-56. With this standard in mind, we must consider whether Campbell's Will was properly executed. In this regard, Georgia law requires that the witnesses to Campbell's Will must have signed the Will in her presence in order for the Will to have been properly executed. Specifically,
from the place where the testatrix is situated (such as sitting in a chair or lying in a bed) when the witnesses sign the will, she must be able to see the witnesses sign the will if she desired to do so without changing her place. This test is referred to as the "line-of-vision" test, and under this test, it is not necessary for the testator to have watched the witnesses sign, as long as the testator could have watched them sign.
(Footnotes and punctuation omitted.) McCormick v. Jeffers, 281 Ga. 264, 266(1), 637 S.E.2d 666 (2006). See also OCGA § 53-4-20(b).
Viewed in the light most favorable to Chester, the record reveals that on April 26, 2006, Campbell, who was in poor health, attempted to execute her Will while seated in the passenger seat of a car that was parked in a bank parking lot. The driver of the car in which Campbell was seated called a bank employee, Christina Evans, and asked Evans to come outside to the bank parking lot to assist Campbell in executing her Will. Evans agreed, exited the bank, and walked to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cowart v. Widener
...and an appellate court must satisfy itself de novo that the requirements of OCGA § 9-11-56(c) have been met. See Chester v. Smith, 285 Ga. 401, 401, 677 S.E.2d 128 (2009); Merlino v. City of Atlanta, 283 Ga. 186, 186, 657 S.E.2d 859 (2008). In our de novo review of the grant of a motion for......
-
Boyd v. Johngalt Holdings, LLC
...undisputed facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.” Chester v. Smith, 285 Ga. 401, 401, 677 S.E.2d 128 (2009) (citations and punctuation omitted). This “standard advances judicial economy by recognizing that, in summary judgment......
-
Johnson v. Burrell
... ... See Lawson, 288 Ga. at 38(1), 701 S.E.2d 180;Smith v. Liney, 280 Ga. 600, 601, 631 S.E.2d 648 (2006). “Other than contacting the attorney at [Hubert's] direction, there is no evidence that [Donna] ... Chester v. Smith, 285 Ga. 401, 401, 677 S.E.2d 128 (2009). Accordingly, we examine the evidence for ourselves, viewing it in the light most favorable to the ... ...
-
Brock v. Yale Mortgage Corp., S10A0950.
...in his divorce settlement agreement with Joyce. Viewed in the light most favorable to Brock, the nonmoving party, Chester v. Smith, 285 Ga. 401, 401-402, 677 S.E.2d 128 (2009), the record shows as follows. The Brocks purchased the property jointly in 1987, financing the transaction with a l......
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...if the testator and witness are within hearing distance of each other. Id. In McCormick the court expressly rejected this test. Id. 5. 285 Ga. 401, 677 S.E.2d 128 (2009). 6. Id. at 402, 677 S.E.2d at 130. 7. Id., 677 S.E.2d at 129-30. 8. Id. at 402-03, 677 S.E.2d at 130. 9. See Kale v. Wils......
-
Socially Distant Signing: Why Georgia Should Adopt Remote Will Execution in the Post-covid World
...have seen the witnesses sign by looking in their direction (quoting Gordon v. Gilmer, 80 S.E. 1007, 1008 (Ga. 1914))); Chester v. Smith, 677 S.E.2d 128, 130 (Ga. 2009) (holding a will invalid because the witnesses signed it in a bank while the testator remained sitting in a car in the bank'......