Executors J’mon Warnock and Florence Overstreet offered for probate the 2004 last will and testament of their sister, Mildred Hilton. Jamie Mosley, Hilton’s granddaughter, filed a caveat challenging Hilton’s testamentary capacity. A jury found Hilton lacked testamentary capacity at the time the will was executed and entered a verdict in favor of Mosley. The trial court thereafter granted the propounders’ motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and conditionally granted a new trial in the event the court’s judgment notwithstanding the verdict was determined to have been granted in error. See OCGA § 9-11-50 c. Mosley appealed from the trial court’s order and for the reasons that follow, we reverse in part and affirm in part. 1. The appellate standard for reviewing the grant of a judgment notwithstanding the verdict is “whether the evidence, with all reasonable deductions therefrom, demanded a verdict contrary to that returned by the factfinder.” Bagley v. Robertson , 265 Ga. 144, 145 454 SE2d 478 1995. See Pendley v. Pendley , 251 Ga. 30-31 302 SE2d 554 1983; OCGA §a. If there is any evidence to support the jury’s verdict, viewing the evidence most favorably to the party who secured the verdict, it is error to grant the motion. Hart v. Fortson , 263 Ga. 389, 389-390 435 SE2d 45 1993.
Under Georgia law, a testator possesses the mental capacity to make a will if she understood that a will had the effect of disposing of her property at the time of her death, was capable of remembering generally what property was subject to disposition by will and remembering those persons related to her, and was capable of expressing an intelligent scheme of disposition. See Quarterman v. Quarterman , 268 Ga. 807 1 493 SE2d 146 1997; Arnau v. Cochran , 257 Ga. 550, 551 1 361 SE2d 173 1987; OCGA § 53-4-11 a “testamentary capacity exists when the testator has a decided and rational desire as to the disposition of property”. The controlling question is “whether the testator had sufficient testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will.” Spivey v. Spivey , 202 Ga. 644, 652 2 44 SE2d 224 1947.
