Court Opinion

ID: 9626276
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:07:09.087631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:24.874617
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur fully in affirmance of the judgment of the trial court, and write separately only to reiterate that, as the majority recognizes, Faircloth v. Coleman, 211 Ga. 356 (86 SE2d 107) (1955) clearly mandates our conclusion in this case. Since the City does not dispute that the retirement benefits are payable and does not take a position as to which claimant should receive them, Mr. Westmoreland’s failure to make a written request for a change of beneficiaries is not controlling. “ ‘ “In such a case . . . the equities of the contestants will be compared. [Cits.]” ’ ” Faircloth v. Coleman, supra at 360. If the evidence showed that Mr. Westmoreland expressed “ ‘his mere intention^ that would] not suffice to work a change of beneficiary.’ ” Faircloth v. Coleman, supra. However, he did more, and actually undertook to change the beneficiary of all his various employment-related benefits from the child to his brother. He was not able fully to achieve that objective because the City did not provide him with the requisite form for changing the beneficiary of his retirement benefits. Where, as here, the employee
makes the effort to make the change and does substantially all he can to do so, his intention is established. . . . “An equitable principle applicable in this case is contained in the maxim that equity regards as done that which ought to be done . . . .”
*36Decided November 21, 2005.
Douglas D. Slade, Sr., for appellant.
Burkhalter, Pierce & Marion, Albert F. Burkhalter, Jr., for appellees.
Faircloth v. Coleman, supra. “Since [Mr. Westmoreland] did substantially all he could to change the beneficiary, and applying the above principles to the undisputed facts in this case, the [trial] court did not err in” awarding the benefits to his brother. Faircloth v. Coleman, supra at 361.