Emmertz v. Cherry
| Decision Date | 13 September 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. S99A1039.,S99A1039. |
| Citation | Emmertz v. Cherry, 520 S.E.2d 219, 271 Ga. 458 (Ga. 1999) |
| Parties | EMMERTZ v. CHERRY. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, William J. Linkous, Jr., Cynthia D. Kennedy, David G. Ross, Atlanta, for appellant.
Altman, Kritzer & Levick, Duane D. Sitar, Joseph S. Carr, Atlanta, for appellee.
We affirm the probate court's ruling that the testator in Item IV of his will waived the executor's right to recover from Cherry a pro rata portion of estate taxes paid on the life insurance policies.
See also34A AmJur2d, ¶ 143,806.Pertinent to this appeal, there are two other provisions in the Internal Revenue Code which are comparable to § 2206, in that they authorize the recovery of pro rata estate taxes paid for qualified terminable interest property (QTIP) or property over which the testator held a power of appointment.IRC §§ 2207and2207A.
The intent of the testator as gathered from the four corners of the will must serve as the primary guide in determining whether the testator "direct[ed] otherwise" so as to waive the executor's right to recover a pro rata share of estate taxes from the beneficiary of nonprobate property.See generallyLegare v. Legare,268 Ga. 474, 490 S.E.2d 369(1997).The will in issue here in the first sentence of Item IV directs the payment of "all Estate, inheritance, succession or death taxes" from the residuum, but it does not contain language specifically providing for the payment of taxes on the life insurance proceeds from the residual estate.The third sentence of Item IV reflects the testator's knowledge of the estate tax consequences of nonprobate property and his express exclusion from the initial "pay all taxes" provision of those taxes his estate could incur from two specific types of nonprobate property, i.e., QTIP and power of appointment property, pursuant to IRC §§ 2207and2207A.
We agree with the probate court that there existed adequate proof of the testator's intention in Item IV to include the taxes on the life...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Cross v. Stokes
...judgment jurisdiction in several reported decisions. See, e.g., Delbello v. Bilyeu, 274 Ga. 776, 560 S.E.2d 3 (2002); Emmertz v. Cherry, 271 Ga. 458, 520 S.E.2d 219 (1999); Lamb v. NationsBank, 270 Ga. 388, 507 S.E.2d 457 (1998). See also Simon v. Bunch, 260 Ga. 201, n. 1, 391 S.E.2d 648 (1......
- Brooks v. State
- Davis v. State
-
Wills, Trusts & Administration of Estates - Mary F. Radford
...(1997 & Supp. 2000). The revised code may be officially cited as the "Revised Probate Code of 1998." O.C.G.A. Sec. 53-1-1 (Supp. 2000). 2. 271 Ga. 458, 520 S.E.2d 219 (1999). 3. Id. at 459, 520 S.E.2d at 220. For purposes of this discussion, the term "gross estate" is used to indicate the e......
-
Tax Apportionment Problems Under the Georgia Probate Code
...Transfer Tax Payment and Apportionment, at A-23 (hereinafter "Pennell & Danforth"). 14. O.C.G.A. 53-4-63. 15. See Emmertz v. Cherry, 271 Ga. 458, 520 S.E.2d 219 (boilerplate language sufficient to waive right of recovery for taxes attributable to insurance proceeds); Collier v. First Nat'l ......