Court Opinion

ID: 9620390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:41:46.972414+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:50.002457
License: Public Domain

Hunt, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
Because neither Townsley v. Townsley, 209 Ga. 323 (72 SE2d 289) (1952) nor any other reported case supports the majority’s holding that the life tenant had complete power to sell the property in this case, I must respectfully dissent.
Townsley involved, as have any number of Georgia cases, a situation in which the testator specifically gave the life tenant the right to sell the property that comprised the life estate. The will of John Shields, however, does not contain specific language granting such a power of sale, and no Georgia case, where such specific language is not included, has permitted the sale of the life estate. My review of the cases, including all those cited by the majority, reveals that this court has found that a life tenant has an unqualified power to sell the property only where the testamentary instrument has expressly granted the right to sell and no limitations have been placed on that power of sale. See Pittard v. Pittard, 232 Ga. 731 (208 SE2d 788) (1974); Pickett v. First Nat. Bank, 223 Ga. 507 (156 SE2d 438) (1967); Parker v. Spurlin, 227 Ga. 183 (179 SE2d 251) (1971); Cousins v. Brackett, 220 Ga. 396 (139 SE2d 329) (1964); Williams v. Jones, 219 Ga. 45 (131 SE2d 553) (1963); Belt v. Gay, 142 Ga. 366 (82 SE 1071) (1914); Broach v. Kitchens, 23 Ga. 515 (1857); and all cases cited in the majority opinion. This difference in the language that circumscribes the life tenant’s authority over the life estate is significant. It is particularly meaningful since the ability to dispose of a life estate is generally inconsistent with the interests of those who would take the remainder. The better rule — the rule we should stay with — is that a life tenant holds the power to sell the property comprising the life estate only when such a power of sale has been expressly granted by the testator. Neither the parties, the courts, nor the practicing bar should be left to infer the power to sell from words that may or may not permit such an inference.
I am authorized to state that Justice Sears-Collins joins in this dissent.