In Georgia, probate courts assist in the orderly disposition of assets after death, and only probate courts can decide whether a person died with a valid will. At Robert W. Hughes and Associates, we have years of experience helping clients resolve issues within the probate court system.

Preparation is the Key

Eight out of ten Americans die without a will in place to assist the heirs in knowing how they want their estate handled. This is called dying intestate and the next of kin will be required to file to administer the estate. When a will does exist, the next of kin will generally need to "probate the will," which involves a complex series of steps overseen and ruled upon by the probate court. This usually includes, among other things, liquidating, distributing or disposing of assets and paying existing debts from the estate. Since someone's first exposure to probate court usually comes at a very emotional time, the steady, guiding hand of an experienced probate attorney is key to ensuring that the proper steps are taken in a calm, orderly and efficient fashion.

Is the Will Valid or Invalid?

Sometimes, even when a person dies after executing a will, it proves to be invalid for a number of reasons. At our firm, we understand all of these reasons, and work to assist family members in assuring that the deceased’s final wishes will be accurately carried out. For example, we:

• assist business owners in maintaining control of their family business after the death of the primary shareholder
• assist those who inherit property through a will in requiring the estate to pay off any debt on that property prior to it being transferred to the intended beneficiary
• assist heirs in having their loved one’s will invalidated due to the circumstances in which it was created; surprisingly often, new wills benefitting non-relative caregivers are created on a person’s death bed or while the person is in a nursing home
• assist heirs who have been wrongfully omitted from a will because the deceased had been told a falsehood about the heir

Finding the Right Method for Each Estate

Numerous methods exist for distributing the assets of an estate—through the probate of the final will, administration of the estate, filing a petition for a year’s support, no-administration-necessary situations and family agreements that alter the final terms of the will. We excel at ferreting out the most appropriate method for a given case and, in many situations, we can save the family thousands of dollars and maximize the preservation of the assets.

Hughes and Associates in the Courts: Case Studies

We have been involved in several landmark probate decisions made by the Georgia Court of Appeals and the Georgia Supreme Court.

Singelman v. Singelman.

Our client’s father died with a will that included a self-proving affidavit, a document that allows a probate court to easily accept the will as the true will of the deceased and eliminates the need for witnesses to be brought to trial to prove its validity. Accordingly, our client elected not to produce the witnesses at trial. The trial court declared the will invalid because our client did not produce the witnesses for trial. We argued the case successfully before The Georgia Supreme Court, which reversed that decision and ordered the will accepted to probate. This became the first case in Georgia testing the validity of the self-proving affidavit law.

Estate of Boss.

Our clients filed a complaint attempting to disprove the validity of a will. We were able to prove at trial that the will had been procured through fraud and undue influence. After the will was successfully voided, our clients asked the estate to pay their attorney’s fees even though there was no law in Georgia allowing such a claim. We were able to argue compellingly that the work by our clients enhanced the value of the estate and stopped the estate from being defrauded to the detriment of the natural heirs of the decedents. Accordingly, the trial court awarded attorney’s fees from the estate, and the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld that decision, setting a precedent for recovery of attorney’s fees when a will is successfully challenged.

Estate of Manders.

In this case, our client became the sole owner of property due to the death of the joint owner. The property had a mortgage and our client sought to have the estate pay the mortgage in accordance with Georgia law. The Georgia Supreme Court held that joint tenants are not entitled to have their real estate paid for from an estate, but if they inherit property from a deceased person, they are entitled to have the mortgage paid for at the time of inheritance. This new interpretation of Georgia law provides many estate planning opportunities for citizens.

Estate of Kennedy.

We argued successfully that Mr. Kennedy had been unduly influenced to leave his estate to a caregiver. The Supreme Court accepted our arguments and upheld the trial court’s order rejecting the will that Mr. Kennedy had prepared. As a result, Mr. Kennedy’s children, rather than the caregiver, inherited his estate.

Estate of Harp.

The majority shareholder in a family owned company left her shares of stock to her three sons equally. One son, our client, already owned more shares than his brothers and, if the shares had been distributed in equal numbers, would become the majority shareholder of the company. The executor of the estate instead attempted to give our client cash plus fewer shares than the other brothers received, which would have resulted in each brother owning the same number of shares. The trial court accepted the executor's conduct. We appealed to the Supreme Court, and convinced the court that the executor had thwarted the intent of the deceased. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court decision and ordered that each brother should receive the same number of shares from the estate, resulting in our client becoming the majority shareholder of the company.

As these cases demonstrate, we are willing to go the extra mile for our clients. We are willing, where the facts and the law allow, to challenge existing law, and make all efforts to convince the courts that the law should be changed in such a way as to benefit our clients.