Griffin v. Peters

Supreme Court of Georgia

Griffin v. Peters

415 S.E.2d 905, 262 Ga. 209

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 30, 1992

DocketS92A0097

StatusPublished

This text of 415 S.E.2d 905 (Griffin v. Peters) 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

Griffin v. Peters, 415 S.E.2d 905, 262 Ga. 209 (Ga. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per curiam.

The caveator appeals from the judgment in favor of the propounder, admitting the will to probate. We affirm.

Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial in the absence of the caveator and his attorney, and in denying the caveator’s motion for new trial. OCGA § 5-5-25. See generally Tri-State Systems v. Village Outlet, 135 Ga. App. 81, 83 (1) (217 SE2d 399) (1975). Moreover, our review of the record indicates that even had the caveator presented evidence in support of his claims, that evidence could not have overcome the case for probate presented by the propounder. The evidence which caveator would have presented — that the testator, his adoptive mother, excluded him from the will — was before the court as part of the propounder’s case. Griffin’s argument that this exclusion demonstrated the testator’s incompetence and that she made this will only at the insistence of Peters is refuted by the undisputed evidence of her long estrangement from Griffin and by the testimony offered by the witnesses to the will’s execution.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. [210]*210Decided April 30, 1992 Reconsideration denied May 21, 1992. Hurl P. Taylor, Jr., for appellant. Lambert & Roffman, E. R. Lambert, for appellee.

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

Per curiam.

The caveator appeals from the judgment in favor of the propounder, admitting the will to probate. We affirm.

Under the circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding with the trial in the absence of the caveator and his attorney, and in denying the caveator’s motion for new trial. OCGA § 5-5-25. See generally Tri-State Systems v. Village Outlet, 135 Ga. App. 81, 83 (1) (217 SE2d 399) (1975). Moreover, our review of the record indicates that even had the caveator presented evidence in support of his claims, that evidence could not have overcome the case for probate presented by the propounder. The evidence which caveator would have presented — that the testator, his adoptive mother, excluded him from the will — was before the court as part of the propounder’s case. Griffin’s argument that this exclusion demonstrated the testator’s incompetence and that she made this will only at the insistence of Peters is refuted by the undisputed evidence of her long estrangement from Griffin and by the testimony offered by the witnesses to the will’s execution.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. [210]*210Decided April 30, 1992 Reconsideration denied May 21, 1992. Hurl P. Taylor, Jr., for appellant. Lambert & Roffman, E. R. Lambert, for appellee.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 S.E.2d 905, 262 Ga. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/griffin-v-peters-ga-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack