Court Opinion

ID: 9622468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:18:04.698409+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:27:33.524706
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Presiding Justice,
dissenting.
I cannot agree with the affirmance of the trial court’s admission of Testatrix Marion Peterson’s alleged will to probate. Even assuming that the will was duly executed in 1976, the cancellation of a material portion of the will raises the presumption, which has not been rebutted, that Testatrix intended to revoke the entire will. Although the majority purports to assume the existence of a material cancellation, it actually conflates the separate issues of what constitutes an obliteration or cancellation, what is a material portion of the will, and how the intention to revoke is determined. Thus, I respectfully dissent.
An express revocation may be effected by any destruction or obliteration of the will done by the testator with an intent to revoke or by another at the testator’s direction. The intent to revoke shall be presumed from the oblitera*549tion or cancellation of a material portion of the will, but such presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence.
OCGA § 53-4-44. Thus, an intention to revoke will be presumed from either “the obliteration or canceling of a material portion of the will. In Georgia, the drawing of [even] pencil lines through provisions of a will is a sufficient ‘canceling.’ [Cit.]” Carter v. First United Methodist Church of Albany, 246 Ga. 352, 354 (2) (271 SE2d 493) (1980). In this case, the names of all successor beneficiaries were stricken through by a single ink line. Under Georgia law, this constituted an actual cancellation of a portion of the will and, contrary to the majority, was not a mere unsuccessful attempt. See Carter v. First United Methodist Church of Albany, supra. Compare Wells v. Jackson, 265 Ga. 181, 182-183 (453 SE2d 690) (1995) (no evidence of actual cancellation of beneficiaries’ names where marks at issue were smudges which in no way obscured those names); Cornelius v. Crosby, 243 Ga. 26, 28 (6) (252 SE2d 455) (1979) (no contention that the predecessor to OCGA § 53-4-44 applied to the attempted alteration of a required age for a beneficiary); Payne v. Payne, 213 Ga. 613, 614 (100 SE2d 450) (1957) (unsuccessful attempt to destroy will where “no word contained in the will [was] destroyed or rendered obscure in the slightest degree”).
Because there was an actual cancellation of the names of all successor beneficiaries, the next question presented is whether that cancellation “is ‘material’ within the meaning of the statute. . . . Whether [it] is material such as will invoke the statutory presumption that the testator intended to revoke his will is a question of law for the court. [Cits.]” Lovell v. Anderson, 272 Ga. 675, 676 (1) (553 SE2d 64) (2000).
Under the code it is provided that an intention to revoke the will will be presumed from the obliteration or cancellation of a material portion of it. It was argued that the word “material” meant essential. But the language of the code indicates that it does not use the word in so restricted a meaning. ... In Black’s Law Dictionary the word “material” is defined to mean “important; more or less necessary; having influence or effect; going to the merits; having to do with matter, as distinguished from form.”
Hartz v. Sobel, 136 Ga. 565, 578 (71 SE 995) (1911). The will provided that the entire estate was to be held in trust for the primary beneficiary during her lifetime and that, upon her death, the entire remaining estate would be distributed to the successor beneficiaries *550in a specified manner. The cancellation of all of their names “was material because it directly affected the distribution of all property in the estate.” Lovell v. Anderson, supra.
Because the striking of the beneficiaries’ names was a material cancellation, it “gave rise to a rebuttable presumption under OCGA § 53-4-44 that [Testatrix] intended to revoke [her] entire will. [Cit.]” Lovell v. Anderson, supra. Furthermore, as the majority recognizes, Testatrix’s will was found on her desk among her personal papers. Where, as here, a will containing cancellations or obliterations is found among the testatrix’s effects or in her custody, a common law presumption arises that she made the obliterations or cancellations. Carter v. First United Methodist Church of Albany, supra at 353 (2); Lovell v. Anderson, supra at 675, fn. 2, 677 (2). As a result of the evidence supplied by the presumption in OCGA § 53-4-44 that Testatrix intended to revoke her will, supported by the presumption that she made the cancellations, Caveators Arvin Peterson and Carolyn Peterson Basner clearly met their burden of coming forward with some evidence that Testatrix intended to revoke her will by material cancellations. Lovell v. Anderson, supra at 678 (2), fn. 16.
Neither the majority nor Appellee Richard Harrell points out any evidence in rebuttal. There is no parol evidence as to the acts and declarations of Testatrix, although such evidence is admissible. See King v. Bennett, 215 Ga. 345, 349-350 (110 SE2d 772) (1959). The nature of the cancellations themselves obviously does not rebut the very presumption which they raise. The fact that Testatrix also cancelled another, less material provision, by altering the appointment of an executrix, is simply evidence of even more extensive cancellation than is necessary to raise the presumption of intent to revoke the entire will.
In its zeal to overcome that presumption, the majority relies upon Morris v. Bullock, 185 Ga. 12 (194 SE 201) (1937) as finding “similar evidence of a testator’s intent to cancel certain provisions of a will sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption of intent.” (Majority Opinion, p. 547) However, this Court held in Morris, supra at 12 (1), that the trial court there “did not err in determining that the alteration made in the will was not so material as to create a presumption of intention to revoke the entire instrument.” Thus, it appears that this Court, rather than relying on rebuttal of the presumption, determined that no such presumption ever arose in that case. Furthermore, the will provision cancelled in Morris, unlike the portions cancelled here, bequeathed only a few described articles of personalty and, therefore, clearly was not material.
Moreover, this Court has held that the specific language relied upon by the majority, found in Morris v. Bullock, supra at 25-26, *551“completely contradicts the statute ([cit.]) which attaches to . . . obliterations or cancellations of [a] material portion of the will a presumption that they were done with an intention to revoke the whole will.” Howard v. Cotton, 223 Ga. 118, 122 (153 SE2d 557) (1967). Even if any language in Morris remains viable and can be construed as the majority desires, it is also contrary to Lovell v. Anderson, as discussed above. Being the more recent cases, Howard and Lovell constitute the controlling authority pursuant to Hall v. Hopper, 234 Ga. 625, 629 (3) (216 SE2d 839) (1975). See Hardeman v. State, 272 Ga. 361, 362 (529 SE2d 368) (2000).
Decided February 1, 2010
Reconsideration denied March 1, 2010.
Tom Pye, for appellant.
Perrotta, Cahn & Prieto, Michael S. Goode, for appellee.
Accordingly, contrary to the majority opinion, evidence of a material cancellation and an intent thereby to revoke the entire will arises from the face of the will and from the correct application of presumptions long established by Georgia law, and there is a total absence of any evidence to the contrary. The rationale and operation of the presumption in OCGA § 53-4-44 have been extensively considered and well settled, and any change therein should be solely a matter for the legislature. Therefore, the trial court’s judgment against Caveators should be reversed.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Hunstein joins in this dissent.