December 14th, 2012

The drafting lawyer.

The attesting witnesses.

The notary.

Time and again the case law suggests to us that these are three of your most important witnesses in defending (or pursuing) a lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence case.  Yet, we sometimes don’t put a lot of thought into who will be our attesting witnesses or notary and how they might come across as witnesses at trial.

In Amerson v. Pahl, decided by the Georgia Supreme Court, we get to see again how a case turns on the testimony of these three witnesses. (more…)

May 21st, 2012

Non-probate transfers of assets can be tough to attack.  First, they’re often hard for estate beneficiaries or heirs to find out about.  Second, even if they do know about them, in Georgia they’re often wrongly challenged in probate court or there’s a probate court ruling or order that makes them difficult to challenge in the appropriate forum. 

That’s why a case like Prainito v. Smith is unusual.  In this case, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict that a decedent’s grandson exercised undue influence and committed actual fraud with regard to a securities account to which the grandson was a joint tenant with the decedent and a certificate of deposit on which the grandson was a payable on death beneficiary.

The appellate court’s failure to flesh out some more of the underlying details of the case and failure to fully address the undue influence claim, however, make the decision one that may create some issues down the road. (more…)

January 19th, 2012

A recent Georgia Supreme Court case explains the shifting burdens in Georgia will contest cases.  In Parker v. Kelley, Virginia Crawford Kelley filed a petition to probate the will of Mabel Frances White in solemn form.  Phillip Harold Parker filed a caveat.

Let’s take a look at how this propounder satisfied her burden and thus shifted the burden of proof to the caveator. (more…)

November 23rd, 2011

We’ve previously noted that undue influence cases are very fact specific.  In other words, the results of undue influence estate litigation will vary greatly based on the underlying facts.  Of course, this leads to bad facts often making bad law in this area.

In Simmons v. Norton, the Georgia Supreme Court had occasion to remind us of what doesn’t constitute undue influence under Georgia law. (more…)