Lemon v. Fidelity National Bank

Supreme Court of Georgia

Lemon v. Fidelity National Bank

458 S.E.2d 619, 265 Ga. 641

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedJune 26, 1995

DocketS95A0801

StatusPublished

This text of 458 S.E.2d 619 (Lemon v. Fidelity National Bank) 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

Lemon v. Fidelity National Bank, 458 S.E.2d 619, 265 Ga. 641 (Ga. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunt, Chief Justice.

Richard D. Lemon brought an action against the executor of his uncle’s estate, claiming fee simple title to certain property. The trial court granted the motion to intervene and motion for summary judgment of the Presbyterian Church in America Foundation, Inc., which claimed title to the property under the uncle’s will. The trial court’s orders fully and correctly explain its conclusions that the Foundation has a right to intervene as a party defendant; Lemon lost all rights to the property when his father conveyed his assignable remainder interest in the property to Lemon’s uncle; and that the Foundation is the legal owner of the property under the uncle’s will. Therefore, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. [642]*642Decided June 26, 1995 Reconsideration denied July 28, 1995. Richmond D. Lemon, pro se. Kraus & Spears, John W. Spears, Jr., Bloodworth & Nix, John A. Nix, Vincent, Chorey, Taylor & Feil, Celeste McCollough, Lisa F. Harper, for appellees.

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

Hunt, Chief Justice.

Richard D. Lemon brought an action against the executor of his uncle’s estate, claiming fee simple title to certain property. The trial court granted the motion to intervene and motion for summary judgment of the Presbyterian Church in America Foundation, Inc., which claimed title to the property under the uncle’s will. The trial court’s orders fully and correctly explain its conclusions that the Foundation has a right to intervene as a party defendant; Lemon lost all rights to the property when his father conveyed his assignable remainder interest in the property to Lemon’s uncle; and that the Foundation is the legal owner of the property under the uncle’s will. Therefore, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur. [642]*642Decided June 26, 1995 Reconsideration denied July 28, 1995. Richmond D. Lemon, pro se. Kraus & Spears, John W. Spears, Jr., Bloodworth & Nix, John A. Nix, Vincent, Chorey, Taylor & Feil, Celeste McCollough, Lisa F. Harper, for appellees.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

458 S.E.2d 619, 265 Ga. 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemon-v-fidelity-national-bank-ga-1995.