Fleming v. Constantine

Supreme Court of Georgia

Fleming v. Constantine

457 S.E.2d 714, 265 Ga. 525

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 5, 1995

DocketS95A0303

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 457 S.E.2d 714 (Fleming v. Constantine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fleming v. Constantine, 457 S.E.2d 714, 265 Ga. 525 (Ga. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

[525]*525Sears, Justice.

Josephine Murray died testate in August 1993. Norma Fleming, the testator’s niece, and Irma Hutchinson, the testator’s sister, contested the probate of the will, contending that Murray lacked testamentary capacity. The trial court granted summary judgment to the will’s propounder, Katherine Constantine. We conclude that the caveators presented enough evidence of the testator’s unstable mental condition both before and after the will’s execution to create a jury question as to whether Murray was capable, when she executed the will, of rationally disposing of her property.¹ Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the pro-pounder.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Hunt, C. J., Benham, P. J., and Fletcher, J., who dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[525]*525Sears, Justice.

Josephine Murray died testate in August 1993. Norma Fleming, the testator’s niece, and Irma Hutchinson, the testator’s sister, contested the probate of the will, contending that Murray lacked testamentary capacity. The trial court granted summary judgment to the will’s propounder, Katherine Constantine. We conclude that the caveators presented enough evidence of the testator’s unstable mental condition both before and after the will’s execution to create a jury question as to whether Murray was capable, when she executed the will, of rationally disposing of her property.¹ Therefore, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the pro-pounder.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur, except Hunt, C. J., Benham, P. J., and Fletcher, J., who dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

457 S.E.2d 714, 265 Ga. 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-constantine-ga-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack