Creshon Denise Saunders and Quisha Denise Saunders, individually and as co-executors of the Estate of Gwendolyn E. Harold Battle, appeal an order of the Probate Court of DeKalb County awarding a year’s support to their mother’s husband, LeRoy Battle. The caveators contend the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Battle a year’s support and in calculating the award. After considering the record and the applicable law, we find no error and affirm. Under Georgia law, “the surviving spouse and minor children of a testate or intestate decedent are entitled to year’s support in the form of property for their support and maintenance for the period of 12 months from the date of the decedent’s death.” OCGA § 53-3-1 c. If an interested person objects to a petition for year’s support, the probate “court shall set apart an amount sufficient to maintain the standard of living that the surviving spouse . . . had prior to the death of the decedent.” OCGA § 53-3-7 c. In order to sustain the probate court’s year’s support award and denial of the caveat, there must be some evidence that the amount of property awarded bears a reasonable relationship to the amount the surviving spouse needs for a period of 12 months from the decedent’s death to maintain the standard of living he had prior to the decedent’s death. In making this determination, the probate court takes into consideration 1 the support available to the surviving spouse from sources other than year’s support, including but not limited to the principal of any separate estate and the income and earning capacity of the surviving spouse, 2 the solvency of the decedent’s estate, and 3 such other relevant criteria as the court deems equitable and proper. OCGA § 53-3-7 c. The probate court’s determination of the amount awarded as year’s support will be upheld on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Citations omitted. Hunter v. Hunter , 256 Ga. App. 898, 898-899 569 SE2d 919 2002.
In this case, the caveators contend the trial court erred in two calculations: the support available to Battle from sources other than year’s support and the amount needed to maintain his standard of living for the year after his wife’s death. First, the caveators contend the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to consider as income a $22,285 lump-sum death benefit Battle received from his wife’s employer. To the contrary, the probate court’s order clearly indicates that the court did consider the death benefit as a resource available for Battle’s support.
