This dispute involves the administration of the estate of George Guess Robertson, who died in 1999. On February 25, 2004, the probate court ordered John Cross, Robertson’s Department of Veterans Affairs “DVA” guardian,1 to turn over $226,094.66 to Zetta Stokes, the estate’s Administrator with Will Annexed. In nine enumerations of error, Cross appeals that order and several other rulings below. Finding no error, we affirm. This is the second time that this case has been before a Georgia appellate court. In 2002, our Supreme Court decided Cross v. Stokes ,2 which adjudicated Cross’ status as a beneficiary and provides a synopsis of the facts underlying the dispute. As noted in Cross , Robertson’s will left one-half of his estate to Stokes and one-half to Cross, the DVA guardian. The probate court admitted the will to probate through a November 2000 order. In that same order, the probate court indicated that Cross was disqualified as a beneficiary under OCGA § 29-6-11 c, which provides: Unless a DVA guardian is the next of kin under the laws of descent and distribution of the State of Georgia, no such guardian shall be named as a beneficiary under the last will and testament of his or her ward under any will executed while the guardian is serving as such. Any provision in any such will to the contrary shall be null and void. Cross subsequently filed a petition for declaratory judgment regarding the constitutionality of OCGA § 29-6-11 c. In January 2002, the probate court deemed the statute constitutional and found that it applied to Cross. Cross then appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the trial court’s ruling.3
In so doing, the Supreme Court first determined that the probate court’s November 2000 ruling disqualifying Cross as a beneficiary was void because, “in a proceeding to probate a will in solemn form, the probate court is without jurisdiction to determine whether a beneficiary of the will is statutorily disqualified from taking under the will.”4 The Supreme Court further noted, however, that the probate court addressed Cross’ “status as a beneficiary” in its January 2002 ruling on the declaratory judgment petition.5 Thus, “the issues concerning the applicability and constitutionality of OCGA § 29-6-11 c” were properly before the Court.6 And it ultimately agreed with the probate court that the statute was both constitutional and applicable to Cross.7
