Court Opinion

ID: 9575632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:15:31.257956+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:23.413940
License: Public Domain

*502Beasley, Judge,
dissenting.
1. The trial court should be affirmed because the will detailing how Thorpe wished his estate to be disposed of did not contravene the court decree.
“As a general rule, judgments are to be construed like other written instruments.” 46 AmJur2d 363, Judgments, § 73. In case of doubt or ambiguity, a judgment or decree must be construed in connection with the pleadings, even though in so construing it, the generality of the judgment may be modified. Clark v. Bd. of Dental Examiners, 240 Ga. 289, 294 (5) (240 SE2d 250) (1977); Landrum v. McGehee, 116 Ga. App. 507 (157 SE2d 830) (1967); 49 CJS 870, Judgments, § 438. If the judgment is “not ambiguous and leaves nothing for interpretation, there is no need to refer to the pleadings or other parts of the record.” 46 AmJur2d 365, Judgments, § 76. Where the language is “plain and unambiguous, there is no room for construction or interpretation, and the effect thereof must be declared in the light of the literal meaning of the language used.” 49 CJS 863, Judgments, § 436.
The decree was clear and unequivocal. It did not require Thorpe to make a will granting Georganna a share in his estate, but only that she be devised and bequeathed the same share as Thorpe’s other children. If it had meant to require some actual share, it would have indicated what the minimum would be. The court’s decision cannot be construed to have deliberately invited another lawsuit as to what bequest would be adequate or reasonable or meet some other unnamed criterion.
Georganna was entitled to equal treatment, not to a bequest, and she was given it. Thorpe was under no mandate to leave something to each of his children, which would require an equal share for Georganna. Failing to include Georganna as a beneficiary did not violate the terms of the judgment.
2. Georganna contends that even if the decree itself did not order Thorpe to make a will leaving her a share in his estate, his motion for j.n.o.v. raised the question of whether there was any evidence showing that Thorpe agreed to include Georganna in his will, leaving her an amount equal to the amounts left his other children, and that he be required to make such a will, including Georganna. in his will. Georganna argues that the denial of the motion established that there was evidence requiring Thorpe to make a will which included Georganna as a beneficiary entitled to an equal share in the estate as that given to his other children in the former will, i.e., one-eighth of the entire estate; that under principles of res judicata she must be included as such a beneficiary.
This ingenious argument fails. The sole purpose of a j.n.o.v. is to permit the trial court to review and reconsider its ruling on the antecedent motion for directed verdict. Peacock v. Sheffield, 115 Ga. App. *503116, 119 (1) (153 SE2d 619) (1967). The denial of a motion for j.n.o.v. is proper unless the evidence demanded a verdict contrary to that returned by the jury. Davis v. Glaze, 182 Ga. App. 18, 19 (1) (354 SE2d 845) (1987). Where authorized, the verdict stands. Pethel v. Waters, 220 Ga. 543 (140 SE2d 252) (1965).
Decided June 12, 1990
Rehearings denied July 9, 1990 and July 24, 1990 — Cert. APPLIED FOR.
Jones, Brown & Brennan, Taylor W. Jones, Myles E. Eastwood, Rebecca A. Copeland, for appellant.
McGee & Oxford, Stanley P. Meyerson, for appellees.
Regardless of Thorpe’s position on his motion, its denial left the judgment as it was. As pointed out in the first division of this dissent, “as it was” meant with no requirement that Georganna be affirmatively included in the will unless the other children were. The heirs of George Thorpe were not bound by res judicata to include Georganna in the division of his estate.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge Carley and Judge Sognier join in this dissent.