Simon v. Bunch

Decision Date24 May 1990
Docket NumberNo. S90A0360,S90A0360
CitationSimon v. Bunch, 391 S.E.2d 648, 260 Ga. 201 (Ga. 1990)
PartiesSIMON, Trustee v. BUNCH, Executor.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

Simon & Booth, William M. Simon, Savannah, for Simon.

Alvin M. Hitt, Jr., Ralph C. Snow, Jr., Savannah, for Bunch.

BENHAM, Justice.

The last will and testament of Paul Eschol Bunch named appellant as trustee and appellee as executor of the estate.After more than one year had elapsed following the death of the testator, appellant filed a petition in probate court for a complete and final accounting and distribution of the estate to the trustee.SeeOCGA § 53-7-163.After conducting a hearing on the petition, the probate court deemed it necessary to construe the will and concluded that the will failed to create a trust and that, even if it did create a trust, the trust was executed.Accordingly, it denied appellant's petition for accounting and distribution.

1.Citing OCGA § 15-9-86.1(a), appellant contends that appellee's failure to file responsive pleadings to the petition in the probate court entitled appellant, as a matter of right, to an order granting the petition.However, OCGA § 15-9-86.1 is not applicable in the case at bar for two reasons: 1) a petition for accounting and distribution by an executor who has not been removed is not a proceeding listed in OCGA § 15-9-86.1(e); and 2) the notice of the petition for accounting and distribution served upon appellee with a notice of the time of the hearing did not state that the party served must respond or the petition would be granted (OCGA § 15-9-86.1(a)).

2.Construction of a will is generally not within the jurisdiction of the probate court.Lowell v. Bouchillon, 246 Ga. 357(2), 271 S.E.2d 498(1980).1Where, as here, "it appears that a question of construction of a will ... is involved in the accounting, [the probate court] shall enter an order transferring the accounting to the superior court for the determination of all such questions...."OCGA § 53-7-188.Since the probate court's denial of appellant's motion for accounting and distribution was a result of the probate court's exercise of a power it did not have, the judgment of the probate court must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur.

1We recognize that a probate court may, in restricted circumstances, entertain questions of construction of wills.OCGA §§ 15-9-127(1);9-4-4(a)(3).Inasmuch as appellant sought an accounting in probate court, and not a declaratory judgment, those...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
3 cases
  • Cross v. Stokes
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • November 12, 2002
    ...v. Cherry, 271 Ga. 458, 520 S.E.2d 219 (1999); Lamb v. NationsBank, 270 Ga. 388, 507 S.E.2d 457 (1998). See also Simon v. Bunch, 260 Ga. 201, n. 1, 391 S.E.2d 648 (1990); Wausau Ins. Co. v. King, 191 Ga.App. 329(1), 381 S.E.2d 574 (1989). We conclude the probate court was empowered to issue......
  • Gambrel v. State
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • May 24, 1990
  • Rice v. Higginbotham
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • November 2, 1998
    ...OCGA § 15-9-86.1 that November 3, 1997 was a date certain on or before which she was required to file her caveat. See Simon v. Bunch, 260 Ga. 201, 391 S.E.2d 648 (1990). Instead, the citation could be read as notice that written objections were required to be filed no later than the date an......