Mays v. Rancine–Kinchen

• Decision Date: 25 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. S12A0590.,S12A0590.
• Parties: MAYS, Executor v. RANCINE–KINCHEN, Caveator.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

291 Ga. 283

729 S.E.2d 321

12 FCDR 1974

MAYS, Executor

v.RANCINE–KINCHEN, Caveator.

No. S12A0590.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 25, 2012.

John A. Gram, Bethany Sauls Magnus, Bethany Sauls Magnus, Whelchel, Dunlap, Jarrard & Walker, LLP, Gainesville, Keith Jantzan Whitaker, SMITH, Gilliam, Williams & Miles, P.A., Gainesville, for appellant.

Elizabeth Kinchen, Boca Raton, Anne M. Kinchen, Moreland Hills, Priscilla J. Wilson, Medfield, Hope Kinchen, Jacksonville, for other party.

BENHAM, Justice.

Appellant A.R. Mays, executor of the estate of decedent Gilbert Henry Kinchen, filed a petition to probate decedent's will and appellee Katherine Rancine–Kinchen, the decedent's widow, filed a caveat thereto. Appellant moved to dismiss the caveat. In its order resolving the motion to dismiss, the probate court granted the motion to dismiss in part by denying two counts raised by the caveat. The probate court declined to grant the remainder of the motion to dismiss when it allowed three counts of the caveat, which raised issues about a non-testamentary trust agreement that was referenced in the will, to remain pending. Because it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to resolve the trust agreement issues, the probate court's order transferred those issues to the superior court for resolution. Although it determined that appellee had not shown that the will was “incomplete” and “uncertain,” the probate court nevertheless reserved admitting the will to probate until the trust issues were resolved by the superior court. It is from this order that appellant has instituted a direct appeal. Appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal, contending appellant failed to follow the correct appellate procedure.

“It is incumbent upon this Court to inquire into its own jurisdiction. [Cits].” Jenkins v. State, 284 Ga. 642(1), 670 S.E.2d 425 (2008). Appellant contends the probate court's order effectively denies the will for probate in solemn form, and, as such, he is entitled to a direct appeal pursuant to OCGA §§ 5–3–2(b), 15–9–120, and 15–9–123(a), which are statutes that generally allow appeals to be taken from the probate court. Appellee counters that the trial court's order was interlocutory in nature and, therefore, appellant was required to obtain a certificate of immediate review from the trial court and file an application for appeal pursuant to OCGA § 5–6–34(b).

“The policy of the Appellate Practice Act is against multiple appeals and piecemeal litigation.” Cochran v. Levitz Furniture Co. of Eastern Region, 249 Ga. 504, 505(1), 291 S.E.2d 535 (1982). Direct appeals are generally authorized from lower court orders that are final, meaning that there are no issues remaining to be resolved in the lower court. OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(1); First Christ Holiness Church, Inc. v. Owens Temple First Christ Holiness Church, Inc., 282 Ga. 883, 884, 655 S.E.2d 605 (2008). OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(9) authorizes a direct appeal from “[a]ll judgments or orders sustaining motions to dismiss a caveat to the probate of a will.” (Emphasis added). The appealability of an order, however, is ultimately determined by its substance and effect. First Christ Holiness Church, Inc., supra, 282 Ga. at 885, 655 S.E.2d 605;American Medical Security Group, Inc. v. Parker, 284 Ga. 102(4), 663 S.E.2d 697 (2008). Here, appellant's motion to dismiss was sustained in part when the probate court denied two counts of the caveat. Yet, the probate court's order neither denies the petition to probate, nor finally resolves the caveat. The order has the effect of staying the action until issues concerning the trust agreement are resolved in the superior court. Similar orders which reserve ruling on substantive issues in a case have been determined to be interlocutory in nature. See Gray v. Springs, 224 Ga.App. 427, 481 S.E.2d 3 (1997). See also Sotter v. Stephens, 291 Ga. 79, 727 S.E.2d 484 (2012) (judgment that reserved the calculation of the amount of damages was interlocutory). The partial grant of the motion to dismiss resolved nothing as to the main issue in the case—whether the will is admitted to probate. See Cavendar v. Evans, 218 Ga. 739, 130 S.E.2d 717 (1963) (there was no final appealable order where the caveat and letters of administration remained to be tried). See also Wise v. Georgia State Bd. for Examination, Qualification and Registration of Architects, 244 Ga. 449, 260 S.E.2d 477 (1979) (order sustaining the dismissal of two counts of a complaint was not final; certification and application was required for appellate review). Under these circumstances, interpreting OCGA § 5–6–34(a)(9) to allow for a direct appeal from a partially...