Wausau Insurance v. King

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Wausau Insurance v. King

381 S.E.2d 574, 191 Ga. App. 329, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1214

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedApril 14, 1989

DocketA89A0086

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 381 S.E.2d 574 (Wausau Insurance v. King) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wausau Insurance v. King, 381 S.E.2d 574, 191 Ga. App. 329, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Carley, Chief Judge.

In the Probate Court of Cobb County, appellant filed a notice of its disputed claim against the estate of Cynthia V. King. The probate court held that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over disputed claims against an estate, as “[s]uch jurisdiction is of a statutory nature and was not conferred on [it] by the 1987 additional jurisdic[330]*330tion contained in OCGA § 15-9-127.” Appellant appealed directly to this court. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 15-9-123, the case having been filed in the probate court after July 1, 1986. See Walker v. Yarus, 258 Ga. 346 (369 SE2d 32) (1988).

Decided April 14, 1989. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James T. McDonald, Jr., Joseph A. Munger, for appellant. Roberta E. Murphy, Stephen E. ODay, Brooks & Brock, D. Glenn Brock, for appellee.

1. Appellant enumerates as error the probate court’s ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the disputed claim. Appellant urges that such jurisdiction is conferred by OCGA §§ 15-9-127 and 9-4-4, whereby certain probate courts are granted concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts to hear proceedings for declaratory judgments involving fiduciaries.

Notwithstanding its reliance upon OCGA §§ 15-9-127 and 9-4-4, appellant never filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the probate court. The only pleading that appellant ever filed in the probate court was its notice of the disputed claim. In a proceeding between a representative of the estate and an alleged creditor, the probate court has no jurisdiction to decide an issue as to an alleged indebtedness. Gettle, Fraser &c. v. Marchant, 144 Ga. App. 71-72 (240 SE2d 590) (1977); Fulford v. Sweat & Gaskins, 65 Ga. App. 521, 522 (16 SE2d 102) (1941). If appellant wished to invoke the probate court’s jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment, it should have filed a petition seeking such a declaratory judgment. It did not do so. The probate court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the pleadings that were then before it.

2. In light of our holding in Division 1, the remaining enumerations of error need not be addressed.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

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

Carley, Chief Judge.

In the Probate Court of Cobb County, appellant filed a notice of its disputed claim against the estate of Cynthia V. King. The probate court held that it was without subject matter jurisdiction over disputed claims against an estate, as “[s]uch jurisdiction is of a statutory nature and was not conferred on [it] by the 1987 additional jurisdic[330]*330tion contained in OCGA § 15-9-127.” Appellant appealed directly to this court. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to OCGA § 15-9-123, the case having been filed in the probate court after July 1, 1986. See Walker v. Yarus, 258 Ga. 346 (369 SE2d 32) (1988).

Decided April 14, 1989. Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, James T. McDonald, Jr., Joseph A. Munger, for appellant. Roberta E. Murphy, Stephen E. ODay, Brooks & Brock, D. Glenn Brock, for appellee.

1. Appellant enumerates as error the probate court’s ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide the disputed claim. Appellant urges that such jurisdiction is conferred by OCGA §§ 15-9-127 and 9-4-4, whereby certain probate courts are granted concurrent jurisdiction with superior courts to hear proceedings for declaratory judgments involving fiduciaries.

Notwithstanding its reliance upon OCGA §§ 15-9-127 and 9-4-4, appellant never filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the probate court. The only pleading that appellant ever filed in the probate court was its notice of the disputed claim. In a proceeding between a representative of the estate and an alleged creditor, the probate court has no jurisdiction to decide an issue as to an alleged indebtedness. Gettle, Fraser &c. v. Marchant, 144 Ga. App. 71-72 (240 SE2d 590) (1977); Fulford v. Sweat & Gaskins, 65 Ga. App. 521, 522 (16 SE2d 102) (1941). If appellant wished to invoke the probate court’s jurisdiction to render a declaratory judgment, it should have filed a petition seeking such a declaratory judgment. It did not do so. The probate court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the pleadings that were then before it.

2. In light of our holding in Division 1, the remaining enumerations of error need not be addressed.

Judgment affirmed.

McMurray, P. J., and Beasley, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

381 S.E.2d 574, 191 Ga. App. 329, 1989 Ga. App. LEXIS 1214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wausau-insurance-v-king-gactapp-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack