Estate of Suddeth v. Williams

• Decision Date: 14 October 2021
• Docket Number: A21A0864
• Parties: ESTATE OF Raymond A. SUDDETH v. Jennifer Suddeth WILLIAMS as Executor of the Estate of Carolyn C. Suddeth.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

361 Ga.App. 433

864 S.E.2d 630

ESTATE OF Raymond A. SUDDETH

v.Jennifer Suddeth WILLIAMS as Executor of the Estate of Carolyn C. Suddeth.

A21A0864

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

October 14, 2021

Martin L. Fierman, Eatonton, Ben Durant Fierman, for Appellant.

William Michael Waters, for Appellee.

Hodges, Judge.

In this litigation regarding alleged violations of a divorce decree, the trial court entered an order finding that Raymond A. Suddeth (hereinafter "Raymond") was in contempt of his divorce settlement agreement with Carolyn C. Suddeth (hereinafter "Carolyn") and that Carolyn should be awarded attorney fees.¹ At the time that Carolyn originally filed for contempt, Raymond had passed away, and Carolyn filed suit against Raymond's estate, not Raymond, individually, or the estate's administrator, Roy R. Kelly, III. When the trial court ultimately ruled on Carolyn's motion for contempt, Carolyn had also passed away, and Carolyn's executor, Jennifer Suddeth Williams, was substituted as a party to the action.² See OCGA § 9-11-25. Following the trial court's ruling on the contempt action, the attorneys representing the estate defendant filed an application for a discretionary appeal, which this Court granted. Among other things, the estate defendant now contends that, because the underlying action for contempt has been pursued only against Raymond's estate, not Raymond, individually, or the administrator of his estate, the action is a legal nullity at this juncture. For the reasons set forth below, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case with direction.

The pivotal consideration here is the current posture of this proceeding. The record indicates that Carolyn filed suit against only Raymond's estate, and no action has ever been taken to change the named defendant. In response to Carolyn's pleading defect, the estate defendant filed a motion to dismiss and an amended motion to dismiss, which were denied prior to the hearing on Carolyn's contempt claims. In the order denying the motion and amended motion, the trial court provided no explanation for its ruling. Thereafter, the estate defendant filed a renewed motion to dismiss which was argued at the subsequent contempt hearing. In this renewed motion, as well as the previous motions, the estate defendant argued that Carolyn's contempt action, now being maintained by Williams as Carolyn's executor, should be dismissed because it was a legal nullity for failing to name the real party in interest.

Following the hearing on Carolyn's contempt action, the trial court issued another order in which it: (1) summarily denied the renewed motion to dismiss, stating that it adopted the previous order (which contained no reasoning) denying the original motion to dismiss and the amended motion to dismiss; (2) found that Raymond was in contempt of the divorce decree, and ordered Kelly, as administrator of Raymond's estate, to pay Carolyn's estate the sum of $42,525 as her interest in two particular parcels of real estate located on Kinnett Road and Memorial Drive (an amount the trial court determined to be an amount equal to 25% of the net funds upon the sale of the properties); (3) found that Raymond was in contempt of the divorce decree, and ordered Kelly, as administrator of Raymond's estate, to pay Carolyn's estate the sum of $32,360.17 as past due alimony for the time period of December 2015 through April 2017; and (4) summarily granted "[Carolyn's] request for attorney's fees under OCGA § 9-15-14 and OCGA § 19-6-2 (a)" in the amount of $5,300.

"As a general rule, an action by or against an estate must be brought or defended by the legal representatives of the estate." Field v. Mednikow , 279 Ga. App. 380, 381 (1) (a), 631 S.E.2d 395 (2006). "A suit against a designated estate is not a suit with a real defendant .... The estate of a dead man is mere inanimate property. Suits to bind the estate of a dead man should be brought in the name of a personal representative – an executor, administrator, etc. This is no mere technicality." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Estate of Norton v. Hinds , 182 Ga. App. 35, 35-36, 354 S.E.2d 663 (1987). Thus, a suit filed solely against an estate is a legal nullity. See id.

There is an action, however, that can be taken to remedy this situation. A party who improperly brings a suit against an estate may seek to amend that party's pleadings to name the proper party in interest, namely the legal representative of the estate. We have previously explained that the Civil Practice Act "allows for amendment to substitute the real party in interest if incorrectly named." (Citations and punctuation omitted.)

Memar v. Styblo , 293 Ga. App. 528, 529, 667 S.E.2d 388 (2008). This is also reflected in OCGA § 9-11-17 (a), which provides:

Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest.... No action shall be dismissed on the ground that it is not prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest until a reasonable time has been allowed after objection for ratification of commencement of the action by, or joinder or substitution of, the real party in interest; and such ratification, joinder, or substitution shall have the same effect as if the action had been commenced in the name of the real party in interest.

See also OCGA § 9-11-15 (allowing for liberal amendments). To date, however, Williams, as the executor of Carolyn's estate, has not availed herself of this remedy by attempting to amend the pleadings to...