O.C.G.A. § 15-9-89 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Amendment to homestead application allowed. - Amendment to a homestead application could be allowed so as to state the residence of the applicant, and that the applicant was the head of the family. Hardin v. McCord, 72 Ga. 239 (1884). Amendment to raise issue of revocation by subsequent will. - If caveator attempted to amend the caveat in the superior court to raise the issue of revocation by a subsequent will, the trial court erred in granting the proponent’s motion in limine to exclude the later will or any reference to that will from evidence on the ground that the will was not part of the record below on appeal and that the caveator was estopped to amend the caveat by adding a ground outside the record, although it is undisputed that the caveator was aware of the existence of the later will at the time the caveator filed the caveat to the earlier will but did not raise this issue in the probate court. Lee v. Wainwright, 256 Ga. 478, 350 S.E.2d 238 (1986).

Amendment to raise issue not raised in probate court. - If the validity of the will itself was the only issue raised and addressed in the probate court, the caveators could not add the issue of removal of the executor on appeal to the superior court. Yancey v. Hall, 265 Ga. 466, 458 S.E.2d 121 (1995). Amendment proper. - It was error to dismiss an amended objection to the probate of a will on the ground that the original objection was legally insufficient, as an amendment to a caveat was permitted even when it was the amendment that sustained the validity of the caveat; the original objection put the proponent on notice of the objection, and its amendment the next day to include the grounds of undue influence and mental incapacity was proper under O.C.G.A. §§ 9-11-15 and 15-9-89. Deering v. Keever, 282 Ga. 161, 646 S.E.2d 262 (2007). Cited in Payne v. Payne, 229 Ga. 822, 194 S.E.2d 458 (1972); Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 240 Ga. 614, 241 S.E.2d 827 (1978).