Court Opinion

ID: 9604732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:25:59.246484+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:05:38.637564
License: Public Domain

Marshall, Justice,
dissenting.
The questions involved in this complex will case are admittedly close. But, I do find myself in disagreement with several of the conclusions reached by the majority.
The only real basis for the majority’s decision to fund the Item II bequests with bonds valued at fair market value, while funding the Item IV and V bequests with bonds valued at face value, is the fact that the testator used the word “sum” in the Item II bequest, as opposed to his use of the term “principal sum” in the Item IV and V bequests. In my opinion, if the testator had intended to fund the Item II, IV, and V bequests differently, he would have evinced such an intent in clearer terms.
I also disagree with the majority’s classification of the Item III, IX, X, and XI stock bequests as specific. It must be remembered that in dealing with the terms general legacy, specific legacy, and demonstrative legacy, we are dealing with rather technical terms of art. A gift of a specified number of shares of stock or bonds in a particular company is, without more, considered to be a general legacy. See Young v. Young, 202 Ga. 694 (44 SE2d 659) (1947); Bailes v. Halsey, 179 Ga. 182 (175 SE 472) (1934). The reason for this is that shares of stock or bonds are essentially fungible, and they do not, therefore, possess the characteristic of uniqueness associated with a specific legacy. However, a stock or bond legacy can be made specific, if, for instance, the testator were to list the stocks or bonds by serial or stock certificate number. Young v. Young, supra. The gift of a given number of stocks or bonds in a specified company might also be made specific, if the testator qualified the bequest by limiting it to stocks or bonds he owned at the time the will was executed or at the time of his death. See Chaffin, The Time Gap in Wills: Shifting Assets and Shrinking Estates — Obsolescence and Testamentary Planning in Georgia, 6 Ga. L. Rev. 649, 651 (1972). Under the foregoing authorities, the Item II, IV, and V stock bequests should probably be classified as general. However, since the testator had stock in these companies in his estate at the time of his death sufficient to fund these bequests, I think it is manifest that the testator intended these bequests to be funded with the stock he owned, and, therefore, I would classify these bequests as demonstrative.
The effect of the majority’s decision to classify the Item III, IX, X and XI stock bequests as specific — rather than general, as held by the trial court — means that the Item III, IX, X, and XI stock bequests will now abate along with, rather than before, the Item IV and V municipal bond bequests. As held by the majority, the Item II *672bequest to the widow is not subject to abatement.
Finally, I would not cause a further dilution in the assets of the estate by awarding attorney fees to the Item II beneficiary.
Given the bona fide questions in this case concerning the order in which various of the bequests in the will are to abate and concerning how the Item II, IV, and V bequests are to be funded, the only feasible course open to the executrices was to file this petition for construction, which was done within six months from the grant of administration. See Code Ann. § 113-2201. There is no question that the various beneficiaries are in disagreement concerning how these ambiguities in the will are to be resolved, and this necessitated the filing of this petition for construction. Under these circumstances, Alford v. C. & S. Nat. Bank, 237 Ga. 194 (226 SE2d 905) (1976) dictates that the beneficiaries bear their own attorney fees.
I respectfully dissent to Divisions 2 (a), 3 and 5.