Curry v. Sutherland

The testator expressed an intelligent scheme of disposition, in which he specifically stated that he did not wish to leave money to the propounder since he felt it would exacerbate her alcoholism.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Caveator Mary Nan Curry appeals from the grant of summary judgment to the propounder of the will of her father, Paul Curry. Finding that the grant of summary judgment was proper, we affirm. Paul Curry executed a will on July 17, 2002; he was then 86 years old. He named his caregiver, Jean Sutherland, as Executrix and named his friend, James Clanton, as alternate Executor. Sutherland, Clanton, and another friend of Paul Curry’s, Steve Grissett, were named as equal beneficiaries of his entire estate; he specifically excluded his daughter and only child, Mary Nan Curry “Curry”, as a beneficiary. The testator died on April 4, 2003, and the will was presented for probate on May 20, 2003. Curry filed a caveat to probate based on incapacity and undue influence. After discovery and a trial, the probate court entered an order to probate the will. Curry appealed to the superior court and Clanton1 moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion and ordered that the case be remanded to the probate court, and the will be admitted to probate. Curry appeals.2

1. Curry contends that the testator did not have the capacity to make a will. The testator possessed the mental capacity to make a will if he “understood that a will had the effect of disposing of his property at the time of his death, was capable of remembering generally what property was subject to disposition by will and remembering those persons related to him, and was capable of expressing an intelligent scheme of disposition.” Cit. Ashford v. Van Horne , 276 Ga. 636, 636-637 1 580 SE2d 201 2003. “To set aside a will and thus deprive a person of the valuable right to make a will, a stringent standard must be met.” Holland v. Holland , 277 Ga. 792, 795 4 596 SE2d 123 2004.

Curry v. Sutherland

The testator expressed an intelligent scheme of disposition, in which he specifically stated that he did not wish to leave money to the propounder since he felt it would exacerbate her alcoholism.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report