Joseph Thomas Schmidt was diagnosed with schizophrenia, and in 1973, the Veterans Administration began to pay disability benefits to Schmidt. Three years later, the VA appointed Dale L. Groenenboom as his guardian and conservator. In 1997, Schmidt moved into a personal care home, which was owned and operated by Charles and Jerry Reeves. Then, in 2010, Schmidt was diagnosed with kidney cancer. At that time, Groenenboom still served as his guardian and conservator, and Schmidt still lived in the Reeveses’ personal care home. Schmidt was hospitalized in July 2010, and he made a will, which named Groenenboom as the executor. In that will, Schmidt left nothing to his twin sister, Judith Webb, and he instead left all of his estate to Groenenboom and the Reeveses.1 Schmidt died in October 2013, and Groenenboom then filed a petition to probate the will in solemn form. Webb filed a caveat. The probate court denied the caveat and admitted the will to probate, and Webb appeals.2 We affirm the judgment of the probate court.
Webb contends on appeal that Schmidt lacked testamentary capacity as a matter of law when he made the July 2010 will.3 More specifically, Webb argues that Schmidt was unaware of the extent of his estate. Under Georgia law, testamentary capacity exists when the testator has a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of his property. OCGA § 53-4-11 a. This standard for testamentary capacity does not require the testator to know the precise property holdings of which his estate consists, only that he be capable of remembering generally what property . . . is subject to the will’s disposition. Patterson-Fowlkes v. Chancey, 291 Ga. 601, 602 732 SE2d 252 2012. Groenenboom testified that he had informed Schmidt prior to the execution of the will that Schmidt had thousands in his estate. There is evidence that Schmidt had been told that his estate was large or sizeable. There also is evidence that Schmidt was generally uninterested in money, and there is no evidence that he ever asked for more information about the extent of his holdings. Upon this record, we conclude that Schmidt had enough knowledge about the nature and extent of his estate to sustain a finding that he had a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of his property.4
