Preuss v. STOKES PREUSS
Decision Date | 16 September 2002 |
Docket Number | No. S02A0834.,S02A0834. |
Citation | 569 S.E.2d 857,275 Ga. 437 |
Parties | PREUSS, Co-Exr. v. STOKES-PREUSS, Co-Exr., et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Adam R. Gaslowitz & Associates, Adam R. Gaslowitz, Atlanta, for appellant.
Spears & Spears, John Wesley Spears, Jr., Malane Toft Spears, McCurdy & Candler, PPC, John Walter Drake, Decatur, Richard J. Dreger, Roswell, for appellee.
This appeal involves the issue whether an in terrorem clause in a will applies to an action to remove a co-executor of the will. The probate court ruled that the clause did not bar such an action, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Ms. Stokes-Preuss filed this declaratory judgment action stating that she wanted to bring an action, as an individual beneficiary and as a co-executor, to remove Mr. Preuss as a fiduciary and that she wanted a determination as to whether the in terrorem clause would apply to such an action. The probate court held that an action to remove Charles as executor would not trigger the application of the in terrorem clause, and on appeal, Mr. Preuss contends that the probate court erred in so holding. We disagree.
Because in terrorem clauses result in forfeitures, they must be strictly construed.1 The in terrorem clause in question provides that only a beneficiary forfeits his or her interest in the estate if he or she brings an action that falls within the scope of the clause, and it does not prohibit or address...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Duncan v. Rawls
..., 321 Ga. App. 349, 353 (1), 739 S.E.2d 533 (2013) (punctuation omitted).15 Id. (punctuation omitted); accord Preuss v. Stokes Preuss , 275 Ga. 437, 438, 569 S.E.2d 857 (2002).16 See Duncan I , 345 Ga. App. at 350 (1) (b), 812 S.E.2d 647 (holding that there is no statutory good faith/probab......
-
In re Estate of Burkhalter, A16A1698
...Ms. Burkhalter's will."7 "Because in terrorem clauses result in forfeitures, they must be strictly construed." Preuss v. Stokes–Preuss, 275 Ga. 437, 438, 569 S.E.2d 857 (2002) (footnote ...
-
Sinclair v. Sinclair
...of this state. "Because in terrorem clauses result in forfeitures, they must be strictly construed. [Cits.]" Preuss v. Stokes-Preuss, 275 Ga. 437, 438, 569 S.E.2d 857 (2002). Moreover, conditions in terrorem "that are impossible, illegal, or against public policy shall be void." OCGA § The ......
-
Cox v. Fowler, No. S05A0708.
...terrorem clause in Turner's will is void. I am authorized to state that Justice BENHAM joins in this dissent. 1. Preuss v. Stokes-Preuss, 275 Ga. 437, 437, 569 S.E.2d 857 (2002), citing Linkous v. National Bank of Georgia, 247 Ga. 274, 274 S.E.2d 469 2. 217 Ga. at 62, 121 S.E.2d 111. Compar......
-
Wills, Trusts, Guardianships, and Fiduciary Administration - Mary F. Radford
...favored by the courts and are strictly construed. Linkous v. First Nat'l Bank of Atlanta, 247. Ga. 274, 274 S.E.2d 469 (1981). 38. 275 Ga. 437, 569 S.E.2d 857 (2002). 39. Id. at 437, 569 S.E.2d at 857. 40. Id. at 437-38, 569 S.E.2d at 857-58. 41. Id. at 438, 569 S.E.2d at 858. 42. Id. 43. T......