Reynolds v. Reynolds' Estate, s. 31642
| Decision Date | 03 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 31642,31676,s. 31642 |
| Citation | 238 Ga. 1,230 S.E.2d 842 |
| Parties | Marianne O'Brien REYNOLDS v. ESTATE of Richard J. REYNOLDS et al. Marianne O'Brien REYNOLDS v. Nancy S. REYNOLDS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
O'Callaghan, Saunders & Stumm, Richard L. Stumm, Gene B. McClure, Atlanta, for appellant.
Jones, Bird & Howell, Earle B. May, Jr., Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Patricia Barmeyer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert, Whittle, Harrell & Gayner, Wallace E. Harrell, Brunswick, Miller, Beckmann & Simpson, Savannah, Daniel H. White, Darien, for appellees.
These appeals arise from a complaint filed by Marianne O'Brien Reynolds in the Superior Court of McIntosh County against the estate of R. J. Reynolds, deceased, Annemarie S. Reynolds, and others including the State of Georgia.
The plaintiff claims title to Sapelo Island as a result of a handwritten prenuptial agreement between the plaintiff and the late Richard J. Reynolds whereby 'for and in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and other valuable consideration' he did convey to the plaintiff all the common stock of Sapelo Plantation, Inc. by bill of sale and further did agree to transfer the stock upon the books of the Sapelo Plantation, Inc. on or before sunset, October 20, 1945. The complaint alleges that the transfer of said common stock from Richard J. Reynolds was tantamount to the transfer of ownership of the 16,000 acres, more or less, of realty lying and situated on Sapelo Island, Georgia to which said corporation held title. No transfer of such stock ever took place, although Richard J. Reynolds told her that the stock had been transferred.
The complaint alleged in part that on the 20th day of October, 1945, plaintiff was an unmarried female residing in the State of California, and said plaintiff became involved in the romantic attachment with Richard J. Reynolds. As a result of the romantic attachment, Richard J. Reynolds proposed marriage to plaintiff. At the time that the said Richard J. Reynolds proposed marriage to plaintiff, she was a movie star engaged in making and producing motion pictures in Hollywood, California, and earning as a result of her profession, a sizable income in her own right. Richard J. Reynolds entreated plaintiff to forgo her career as a star actress in the motion picture industry and to marry him and return with him, upon his discharge from the armed services of the United States, to Sapelo Island, Georgia and to live there with him as his wife. Plaintiff, being mindful of the uncertainty of marriage and knowing that Richard J. Reynolds had had a prior unsuccessful marriage, was hesitant to accept the proposal of marriage to Richard J. Reynolds and forgo the Lucrative career which she had established for herself in the motion picture industry. In order to entice plaintiff to accept the proposal of marriage, the said Richard J. Reynolds did execute on the 20th day of October, 1945, a handwritten prenuptial agreement with the plaintiff in which Richard J. Reynolds for and in consideration of the sum of $10 and the agreement of plaintiff to marry him, did convey to plaintiff all the common stock of Sapelo Plantation, Inc. by bill of sale and further did agree to transfer the stock upon the books of Sapelo Plantation, Inc. on or before midnight of this date. The transfer of the said common stock from Richard J. Reynolds to plaintiff was tantamount to the transfer of ownership of said 16,000 acres, more or less of realty to which said corporation held title, said realty lying and situate on Sapelo Island, Georgia.
The stock was not transferred on the books of the corporation, although Richard J. Reynolds told the plaintiff that it had been so transferred. During subsequent years the property was sold, corporations dissolved and new corporations formed, a portion of the property sold to the State of Georgia and other transfers made.
The plaintiff seeks to set aside such deeds, obtain the island, as well as other relief.
Exhibits submitted in support of the motions for summary judgment include copies of the divorce complaint (filed after the 'Bill of Sale' was executed) against Richard J. Reynolds by his then wife Elizabeth Dillard Reynolds and the divorce decree dated June 14, 1946.
The judgment of the trial court granted summary judgments to numerous defendants on multiple grounds was dated July 21, 1976. A second summary judgment was granted to other defendants on August 26, 1976, and the appeals are from these judgments. The first ground upon which summary judgment was granted was that the contract was void as being against public policy inasmuch as its consideration was a promise to marry a person then married. As such, the contract was one promoting the dissolving of a marriage in conflict with public policy of Georgia which favors the preservation of marriage.
1. "Facts alleged, positively, are constructive admissions in favor of the defendant, of the facts so alleged, and, therefore, need not be proved by other evidence. The plaintiff by introducing them in his bill, and making them a part of the record, precludes himself from disputing their truth, whether they be true or false. The allegations and admissions of the complainant's bill are, therefore, evidence against him.' Peacock v. Terry, 9 Ga. 137(6), 150. See also Field v. Manly, 185 Ga. 464, 466, 195 S.E. 406; Youngblood v. Youngblood, 74 Ga. 614(2); Hampton v. Thomas, 11 Ga. 317, 320; New Zealand Fire Ins. Co. v. Brewer, 29 Ga.App. 773(6), 116 S.E. 922. Under this ruling, the plaintiff was bound by the solemn and unstricken allegation contained in her petition, which was admitted by the answer . . . East Tennessee Railway Co. v. Kane, 92 Ga. 187(5), 193, 18 S.E.18, 20, 22 L.R.A. 315.' Carver v. Carver, 199 Ga. 352(1), 34 S.E.2d 509 (1945). See also Corr v. Corr, 213 Ga. 699, 701, 100 S.E.2d 922 (1957) and cits.
Accordingly, those allegations of the plaintiff's complaint which disclose that the handwritten prenuptial agreement between the plaintiff and Richard J. Reynolds was in consideration of the sum of $10.00 and the agreement of plaintiff to marry him at a time when he was then married to another person cannot be disputed, nor can the allegation that the common stock was never transferred on the books of the corporation be disputed.
Under the dissenting opinion of Presiding Justice Atkinson in Guffin v. Kelly, 191 Ga. 880, 891, 14 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. Jack Eckerd Corp., s. A93A0691
...by Dr. Karp and dispensed by Eckerd's. Held: Case No. A93A0691 (Main Appeal) 1. The trial court, citing Reynolds v. Estate of R.J. Reynolds, 238 Ga. 1, 3, 230 S.E.2d 842, found that appellant's complaint averred "that defendant Karp telephoned a 'PRN' prescription to Eckerd's drugstore.... ......
-
Reynolds v. State of Ga.
...jurisdiction, the trial court accepted plaintiff's interpretation of the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion in Reynolds v. Estate of R. J. Reynolds, 238 Ga. 1, 230 S.E.2d 842 (1976), as both erroneous and unpredictable. We find it to be neither. Although labeled as a "theretofore-unknown and r......
-
Corey v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc.
...in filing suit. While facts alleged in a complaint are constructive admissions in favor of the defendant, Reynolds v. Estate of Reynolds, 238 Ga. 1, 3(1), 230 S.E.2d 842 (1976), "Georgia law requires that, to be admissible, evidence must relate to the questions being tried by the jury and b......
-
Wahnschaff v. Erdman
...pleadings bind the party so that they cannot put up evidence over objection to contradict such admissions. See Reynolds v. Reynolds' Estate, 238 Ga. 1, 3, 230 S.E.2d 842 (1976); State Hwy. Dept. v. Lumpkin, 222 Ga. 727, 728, 152 S.E.2d 557 (1966); Ditch v. Royal Indem. Co., 205 Ga. App. 478......