Snook v. Sessoms

350 S.E.2d 237, 256 Ga. 482, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 930
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 25, 1986
Docket43834
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 350 S.E.2d 237 (Snook v. Sessoms) 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
Snook v. Sessoms, 350 S.E.2d 237, 256 Ga. 482, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 930 (Ga. 1986).

Opinion

Weltner, Justice.

Snook, Prevatt, and Hinson, who are income beneficiaries of the A. K. Sessoms trust, brought suit against the trustees. The trustees then filed a petition for declaratory relief in another county to determine whether these beneficiaries had violated the terms of the in terrorem clause of the trust, and thereby had extinguished their rights as beneficiaries. The trial court declared their rights terminated. We granted to the beneficiaries an interlocutory appeal.

Section 28 of the trust provides: “The trust herein created shall cease and determine for any life beneficiary who attempts, by legal means or otherwise, to set aside or change the terms and conditions of this trust indenture. . . . The share of such beneficiary in the net income of this trust shall revert to the remaining trusts, and the Trustees shall divide and distribute such share in the same manner as if such beneficiary had died without leaving any descendent him surviving.”

The beneficiaries contend that their complaints are directed against the trustees, and did not constitute an attempt to change any terms of the trust. With this contention we agree. The executor of a will “has no arbitrary powers to avoid the provisions of a will which he is appointed to execute. . . . The executor, therefore, remains amenable to law in all his acts and doings as such, and a beneficiary under the will, in seeking to compel the performance by him of his duty, will not be penalized for so doing.” Cohen v. Reisman, 203 Ga. 684 (48 SE2d 113) (1948). This principle applies as well to trustees.

A beneficiary assuredly is empowered to enforce the provisions of a trust, no matter the terms of any in terrorem clause.

Judgment reversed.

All the Justices concur. *483 Decided November 25, 1986. Guttshall, Cook & Guttshall, A. P. Guttshall, for appellants. Tillman, McTier, Coleman, Talley & Newbern, John T. McTier, Miller, Simpson & Tatum, John B. Miller, Jones & Soloman, Dorothy S. Porter, Berien Sutton, Ruth S. Hughes, for appellees.

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

Related

SLOSBERG v. GILLER
876 S.E.2d 228 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2022)
Jennifer Duncan v. Olga Rawls
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2021
Cynthia S. Barry v. Thomas A. Barry, III
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2020
In Re Estate of Robert A. Johnson
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2019
Jenifer Duncan v. Olga Rawls
812 S.E.2d 647 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2018)
William Callaway v. Lucinda Willard
Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013
Callaway v. Willard
739 S.E.2d 533 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 2013)
Durham v. Durham
728 S.E.2d 627 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2012)
Sinclair v. Sinclair
670 S.E.2d 59 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2008)
Snook v. Trust Company of Georgia Bank of Savannah
909 F.2d 480 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)
Snook v. Trust Co. of Georgia Bank of Savannah, N.A.
909 F.2d 480 (Eleventh Circuit, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
350 S.E.2d 237, 256 Ga. 482, 1986 Ga. LEXIS 930, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snook-v-sessoms-ga-1986.