Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Knowledge of the contents of a will by the testator is necessary to the validity of a will. If the testator can read, the testator's signature or acknowledgment of that signature is presumed to show such knowledge.
(Code 1981, §53-4-21, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.)
This section carries forward the first two sentences of OCGA Sec. 53-2-42. Former OCGA Sec. 53-2-42 also stated that greater proof will be necessary to show that the testator knew the will's contents if the scrivener or the scrivener's immediate family receive substantial amounts under the will. The reference is repealed as unnecessary in that suspicious circumstances such as those described will result in closer scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the will execution under the theories of duress and undue influence. Likewise, former OCGA Sec. 53-2-46, dealing with the competency required of an interpreter who is used to convey the wishes of the testator to the scrivener or the witnesses, is repealed as unnecessary.
- Trial court did not err in granting a propounder's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether a testator's will was properly executed because pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 53-4-21, the testator's signature on the will gave rise to a presumption that she knew the contents of the will; the mere fact that only portions of the will were read aloud to the testator was of no consequence. Strong v. Holden, 287 Ga. 482, 697 S.E.2d 189 (2010).
Because a parent's will was plain and unambiguous and did not contain a residue clause, the lapsed gift of the residue passed to the parent's three daughters by intestacy according to O.C.G.A. § 53-4- 65(b); although the parent expressed disappointment with two daughters and left them specific bequests of $10.00 each, the parent did not express an intent to disinherit the daughters. Banner v. Vandeford, 293 Ga. 654, 748 S.E.2d 927 (2013).
Cited in Cames v. Joiner (In re Joiner), 319 Bankr. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2004).
Total Results: 3
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2013-09-23
Citation: 293 Ga. 654, 748 S.E.2d 927, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2937, 2013 Ga. LEXIS 732
Snippet: desire to disinherit Vandeford and Nee. See OCGA § 53-4-21 (if testator can read, his signature is presumed
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-07-05
Citation: 697 S.E.2d 189, 287 Ga. 482, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2183, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 515
Snippet: that she knew the contents of the will. OCGA § 53-4-21. Caveator offered no evidence to overcome this
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-04-27
Citation: 596 S.E.2d 123, 277 Ga. 792, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1529, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 325
Snippet: was, therefore, unaware of its contents. OCGA § 53-4-21 requires such an awareness: "Knowledge of the contents