King v. Young
| Decision Date | 09 September 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 23605,23605 |
| Citation | 222 Ga. 464,150 S.E.2d 631 |
| Parties | Hattie Frances KING et al. v. Nilar YOUNG et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
Since the evidence, as set out in the opinion, demanded a finding that there was no confidential relationship between the propounders and beneficiaries of the will and the testatrix and that no undue influence was exerted upon testatrix by the propounders in her execution of the said will, the court erred in overruling propounders' motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Reinhardt, Ireland, Whitley & Sims, Glenn Whitley, Tifton, Floyd H. Wardlow, Jr., Ashburn, for appellants.
John R. Rogers, Ashburn, for appellees.
Hodge King and his wife, Hattie King, offered for probate in solemn form in the Turner County Court of Ordinary the will of Fannie B. Jones to which Gertrude Davis and Nilar Young, sister and niece of the testatrix, filed a caveat. The will was admitted to probate and the caveators appealed to the Turner Superior Court. The sole ground of the caveat was that 'the said Fannie B. Jones did not execute the said pretended will freely and voluntarily, but was moved thereto by undue influence and persuasions over her by the sole beneficiaries, Hattie Frances King, and Hodge King, and it is, therefore, not her will.' On the trial of the case, the jury found in favor of the caveators. A new trial was granted on the motion of the propounders, but their motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict was overruled. The propounders' appeal from this order is before us for review.
According to the three witnesses, on April 27, 1963, Fannie B. Jones executed her last will and testament in which she devised her home and the lot upon which it was located to Hattie King and her husband, Hodge King. The evidence without dispute shows that Fannie B. Jones was 82 years old at the time she executed the will and that she owned and resided in a house (which was subject to a loan indebtedness) located next to the home of the Kings.
The will was prepared by one A. R. Smith, who testified that Fannie B. Jones came to his office and told him that she wanted to leave her home to Hodge and Hattie King because Hattie had been good to her. Smith and two other witnesses testified that neither Hodge nor Hattie King was present at the time the will was executed. There was evidence that Hodge King at the request of Fannie Jones on several occasions had performed errands for her, and his wife, Hattie, had visited Fannie when she was sick. There was evidence that both the Kings were 25 to 30 years younger than Fannie Jones and were college graduates. On one occasion, when the testatrix was ill, the evidence showed that Hodge King paid an installment of $11 on Fannie's home loan. There was no evidence that Fannie was insane or mentally ill other than at times she did appear to act in an eccentric manner.
Mrs. Ethel G. Rainwater, a public health nurse for Turner County, testified that she visited Fannie Jones on March 22, 1963, 'for the purpose of getting her in for an x-ray at our regular clinic in May and I told her what I wanted and ahe said, 'Mrs. Rainwater, have you got a few minutes?' and I said, 'Yes, Fannie, I do.' She said, 'I want to talk to you.' She said, 'I'd like your advice about a matter.' And I said, 'Well I'll be glad to listen to you, but I don't know about my advice, but I'll be glad to listen to what you've got to say.' And she said, 'I've been home from the hospital a year and a half, and I've had a real hard time since I've been home from the hospital, because nobody has been here to heop me, none of my people have any thing for me.' And said, 'I don't know what I would have done if it hadn't been for Hattie King, she has been so good to me.' Said, 'I made a will before I went to the hospital, but since coming home from the hospital and the fact that my people have not visited me or have not helped in any way, I would like to change my will.' And she asked me if I thought that would be all right, and I told her, I said, 'Well, Fannie, I don't know too much about law, but I think a person has the right to change their will, if they want to, it's your property and I don't see why you couldn't do as you...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. NORTHEAST CONSTR. CO. OF WEST VIRGINIA
...plaintiff and the other party. Reposing trust and confidence in another does not create a confidential relationship. King v. Young, 222 Ga. 464, 150 S.E.2d 631; Dover v. Burns, 186 Ga. 19, 196 S.E. 785. Nor is the existence of previous business relations and the resulting development of con......
-
Harper v. Harper
...in Propounder, but that is not sufficient to trigger the rebuttable presumption that undue influence was exercised. King v. Young, 222 Ga. 464, 467, 150 S.E.2d 631 (1966). The uncontroverted evidence shows that Propounder played no part in Testator's decision to change his will. Construing ......
-
Crumbley v. McCart, S99A0719.
...the primary beneficiary is not sufficient to trigger the rebuttable presumption that undue influence was exercised. King v. Young, 222 Ga. 464, 467, 150 S.E.2d 631 (1966). Undue influence is that "whereby the will of another is substituted for the wishes of the testator." OCGA § 53-4-12. Ac......
-
Formex Mfg., Inc. v. Sullivan Flotation Systems, Inc., s. 91-1469
...no confidential relationship is created merely because the parties have trust and confidence in each other's integrity." King v. Young, 150 S.E.2d 631, 633 (Ga.1966). See also, Citizens & Southern National Bank v. Arnold, 240 S.E.2d 3, 4 (Ga.1977); Royal v. Bland Properties, Inc., 333 S.E.2......
-
Wills, Trusts & Administration of Estates - Mary F. Radford
...Tingle, which is discussed at text accompanying supra notes 48-51. 58. 274 Ga. at 544, 554 S.E.2d at 456. 59. Id. (citing King v. Young, 222 Ga. 464, 150 S.E.2d 631 (1966)). 60. Id. 61. Id. (citing O.C.G.A. Sec. 23-2-58 (defining a confidential relationship)). See supra note 38. 62. 274 Ga.......