lawskills
Loading
Did you know you can download our entire database for free?


Resources
[more] 

Georgia Caselaw:
Browse
Greatest Hits

Georgia Code: Browse

(external) Findlaw Georgia Law Resources


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Lawskills.com Georgia Caselaw
KAPLAN v. KAPLAN et al.
S96A0044.
BENHAM, Chief Justice.
Wills. Bibb Probate Court. Before Judge Self.
Appellees, named executors of their father's will, filed his will for probate. Appellant, who married the decedent in 1978, filed a caveat on the ground of mistake of fact under OCGA 53-2-8. The probate court granted the executors' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
OCGA 53-2-81 provides a method for avoiding the consequences of a testator's mistaken factual beliefs concerning the existence or conduct of an heir at law. Ms. Kaplan asserts that the mistake of fact in the present case was one concerning her conduct. She contends the testator was mistaken about her conduct in signing an ante-nuptial agreement. However, it was not the fact of her signing as to which she contends the testator was mistaken. She argues that the testator's mistake of fact was his belief that she signed an enforceable agreement.
The fundamental flaw in appellant's position is that her caveat does not allege a mistake of fact, but a mistake of judgment. Her conduct was signing the contract. The testator was not mistaken about that. Whether the testator believed the contract was valid, however, was a matter of the testator's judgment, not a matter of fact. "'There is a difference between a "mistake" arising from mere ignorance and one which results from an error of judgment after investigation. . . . It is to such a mistake as that first indicated that [OCGA 53-2-8] applies.' [Cits.]" Thornton v. Hulme, 218 Ga. 480 (3) (128 SE2d 744) (1962). The allegations of the caveat in the present case depict a mistake of the second type referred to in Thornton, a mistake which does not activate the remedial provisions of the statute.
" ' "[A] pleading should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." [Cit.]' " Sheppard v. Yara Engineering Corp., 248 Ga. 147, 150 (281 SE2d 586) (1981). In the present case, there is no set of facts that could establish that the testator's alleged mistake concerning the validity of the ante-nuptial agreement was a mistake of fact. The trial court was correct in dismissing Ms. Kaplan's caveat for failure to state a claim.
Arnall, Golden & Gregory, Robert L. Rothman, Bertrum L. Levy, Walter H. Bush, for appellees.
Notes
1  A will executed under a mistake of fact as to the existence or conduct of an heir at law of the testator is inoperative, insofar as the heir at law is concerned, and the testator shall be deemed to have died intestate as to him. OCGA 53-2-8.
Sell & Melton, Edward S. Sell III, Mitchell P. House, Jr., for appellant.
DECIDED APRIL 29, 1996.
Thursday May 21 05:44 EDT


This site exists because of donors like you.

Thanks!


Valid HTML 4.0!

Valid CSS!





Home - Tour - Disclaimer - Privacy - Contact Us
Copyright © 2000,2002,2004 Lawskills.com