Case Title: Reynolds v. Harrison

Citation: 278 Ga. 495, 604 S.E.2d 184

Docket Number: S04A1273

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 2004-10-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
604 S.E.2d 184 (2004) 278 Ga. 495 REYNOLDS et al. v. HARRISON et al. No. S04A1273. Supreme Court of Georgia. October 12, 2004. Haygood & Pruett, Michael C. Pruett, Watkinsville, Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, William J. Linkous Jr., Nicole J. Wade, Atlanta, for appellants. Alston & Bird, John C. Sawyer, Jay D. Bennett, Atlanta, Russell, Stell, Smith & McLockin, John E. Stell, Jr., Winder, Stewart, Melvin & Frost, J.C. Highsmith, Jr., Gainesville, for appellees. THOMPSON, Justice. The question for decision in this declaratory judgment action is whether a majority of the co-executors can sell the stock of a non-publicly traded corporation which is not expressly bequeathed by name to a beneficiary, *185 even though the estate is fully able to meet its financial obligations. The answer is "yes." Robert H. Harrison died testate. His will names his wife, Patsy Hall Harrison, and his two daughters, Bobbie Ann Harrison Reynolds and Kelley Hall Belcher Tison, as co-executors of his estate. The will provides that decisions and acts of the executor are to be made by a majority vote of the co-executors. The will divides the residuary estate into two parts. One part is to be distributed to The Luther & Susie Harrison Foundation, Inc., a private foundation created by the testator. This bequest is to be funded "to the extent possible ... with marketable securities traded on a national exchange."[1] The other part, the "marital share," is to be distributed to two trusts, an exempt marital trust, and a non-exempt marital trust.[2] The will gives the executor the powers enumerated in OCGA § 53-12-232, and provides that the executor is to "select the assets to be used to satisfy" the bequests to the marital trusts. The will provides, however, that the executor is not to use "any asset with respect to which no marital deduction would be allowed ... if and to the extent there are other assets sufficient to satisfy this bequest." The wife is the exclusive beneficiary of the exempt marital trust for and during her natural life. The remainder ultimately passes to the daughters. The will names the wife and Regions Bank as co-trustees of the trust. In this regard, it provides: The daughters want to sell Harrison Poultry, Inc., a private corporation founded by the testator in 1958, to diversify the estate's assets. The wife opposes the sale. She wants Harrison Poultry to be used to fund the exempt marital trust. The daughters brought a declaratory judgment action to permit the sale of Harrison Poultry. The wife answered and counter-claimed, seeking an order directing the daughters to transfer Harrison Poultry to the marital trust, or, alternatively, to declare that the daughters cannot sell Harrison Poultry without the wife's consent. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court ruled in favor of the wife and against the daughters, holding that the will does not permit the daughters to sell Harrison Poultry unless necessary to pay obligations of the estate. In so doing, the superior court looked for guidance to the affidavit of Bruce A. Denning, the attorney who prepared the will. In his affidavit, Denning averred as follows: 1. The cardinal rule of construction in any will case is to strive to ascertain the intention of the testator. Kirby v. Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank, 235 Ga. 205, 219 S.E.2d 112 (1975). If possible, the testator's intention should be gleaned from the four corners of the will itself. Id.; Riser v. Trust Co. of Ga., 231 Ga. 155(2), 200 S.E.2d 756 (1973). In this case, the will gives the executor the powers set forth in OCGA § 53-12-232. That Code section includes the power OCGA § 53-12-232(2). It also empowers the executor The wife asserts, and the superior court found, that this provision, empowering the executor broadly to sell or dispose of property of the estate, is in conflict with the marital trust provision, empowering the individual trustee to control the sale of any privately held corporation. In this regard, the wife posits that the power given to the individual trustee to control any privately owned corporation implies that the executor is required to fund the trust with a privately owned corporation, i.e., Harrison Poultry. We disagree. The will makes it clear that the testator intended to fund the Luther & Susie Harrison Foundation with publicly traded stock to the extent possible. But the will is silent *187 with respect to funding the exempt marital trust. True, the will states that the individual trustee is to vote all of the stock of any privately owned corporation held by the trust. But that provision only comes into play if and when a privately owned corporation is placed in the trust. It does not, in and of itself, require the executor to fund the marital trust with a non-publicly traded stock.[3] Thus, it does not conflict with, or place a limitation upon, the executor's power to fund the marital trust with the assets she deems advisable. If the testator wanted to require the executor to fund the marital trust with Harrison Poultry, he could have so specified. But in the absence of such specifics, the executor is vested with power to sell the assets of the estate including Harrison Poultry. Compare OCGA § 53-12-232 with Calbeck v. Herrington, 169 Ga. 869, 875, 152 S.E. 53 (1930) (executrix cannot sell testator's home place which was devised expressly to testator's daughter if there are no debts of testator to be paid). The superior court erred in ruling otherwise and in granting wife's motion for summary judgment. 2. Where the terms of a will are plain and unambiguous, they must control. Parol evidence cannot be used to contradict or give new meaning to that which is expressed clearly in the will. Hall v. Beecher, 225 Ga. 354, 356, 168 S.E.2d 581 (1969). Because the will empowers the executor to sell assets of the estate and does not require the executor to fund the exempt marital trust with Harrison Poultry (or any other privately held corporation), the affidavit of the attorney who prepared the will cannot be used to shed light upon the intent of the testator. Id. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur. [1] Funding the foundation with publicly traded securities avoids negative tax consequences. [2] The exemption, or non-exemption, pertains to a generation-skipping transfer tax. [3] Even if it can be said that the trust provision demonstrates that the testator did intend to fund the exempt marital trust with a privately owned corporation, the question remains: which privately owned corporation Harrison Poultry or Harrison Stables?