Benefield v. Martin

20 Citing cases

  1. Dodd v. Dodd

    A19A0178 (Ga. Ct. App. May. 22, 2019)

    Our review of the dismissal of a case is de novo. See Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130 (622 SE2d 469) (2005). The record shows that following the death of his brother ("the decedent"), Dodd paid $7,335.

  2. Crowe v. Elder

    S11G1069 (Ga. Feb. 27, 2012)

    This jurisdiction may encompass adjudicating claims for fraud and breach of contract related to the distribution of a decedent's estate by one in the position to do so. Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130 (622 SE2d 469) (2005); see also Heath v. Sims, 242 Ga. App. 691, 692 (1) (531 SE2d 115) (2000). But, even assuming that either Crowe's fraud claim or the one for breach of contract or both were outside the authority of the probate court, Crowe chose the forum, and therefore, was bound by its limitations and not immune from the subsequent application of res judicata to a later attempt to revive a cause of action based upon the same facts. Green v. Board of Directors of Park Cliff Unit Owners Ass'n, 279 Ga. App. 567, 570 (2) (631 SE2d 769) (2006); Mahan v. Watkins, 256 Ga. App. 260, 261 (568 SE2d 130) (2002).

  3. Morrison v. Morrison

    284 Ga. 112 (Ga. 2008)   Cited 54 times
    Holding that res judicata bars an action when "the entire set of facts" relied on by the causes of action is identical

    Greenway v. Hamilton, 280 Ga. 652, 654 (1) ( 631 SE2d 689) (2006). See also Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130, 131 ( 622 SE2d 469) (2005) (probate court with subject matter jurisdiction may render decision on damages for fraud claims); Sherard v. Aldridge, 251 Ga. App. 445 (2) ( 554 SE2d 590) (2001) (allegations that certain items should have passed outside the will could be brought against the estate in probate court). Therefore, the probate court was a court of competent jurisdiction as required by the res judicata doctrine.

  4. Johns v. Morgan

    281 Ga. 51 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    Certainly, a superior court may become involved in matters relating to the administration of estates where there is a danger of loss or other injury to a party's interest, or where equitable interference is required for the complete protection of the rights of the parties in interest. Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130, 131 ( 622 SE2d 469) (2005). This Court has defined "interest in the estate" in such a manner as to include equitable redress in superior court when adequate relief is otherwise unavailable.

  5. Greenway v. Hamilton

    280 Ga. 652 (Ga. 2006)   Cited 15 times
    Affirming the probate's court order to the executor to forfeit his commissions because “the probate court has the power to require [an executor] to forfeit commissions and fees for breaching his fiduciary duties”

    [Cit.]Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130, 130-132 ( 622 SE2d 469) (2005). 3. Greenway contends the trial court's award of attorney fees and court costs was unauthorized because, as to attorney fees, Hamilton did not allege bad faith, and as to both attorney fees and court costs, she did not specifically request them.

  6. Braswell v. Benton

    351 Ga. App. 372 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times

    OCGA § 15-9-30 (a) (1), (10)." Benefield v. Martin , 276 Ga. App. 130, 622 S.E.2d 469 (2005). And "[g]enerally, a court of equity (the superior court) will not interfere with the administration of estates."

  7. In re Estate of Hubert

    A13A1484 (Ga. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2013)

    " There was evidence to support this finding, and the decision to remove the parties as co-executors fell within the probate court's discretion under OCGA § 53-7-55 to remove an executor for "good cause." See generally Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130, 132 (622 SE2d 469) (2005) (the "probate court can order an accounting, remove executors or require they post additional security, or issue such other order as in the probate court's judgment is appropriate under the circumstances of the case" to address issues pertaining to the performance of executors) (citations and punctuation omitted); In re Estate of Zeigler, 273 Ga. App. 269, 270 (1) (614 SE2d 799) (2005) ("The relevant question in reviewing a removal order is whether the trial court had grounds to conclude that there was 'good cause' for removal.") (citation omitted). 9. Bond order.

  8. In re Willis

    310 Ga. App. 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Compare Cannon, 269 Ga. at 673 (allegations of fraud and mismanagement by executor sufficient to compel an accounting), with Marshall v. Marshall, 268 Ga. 687, 689-90 (3) ( 492 SE2d 188) (1997) (allegations of suspected mismanagement, without specificity, were insufficient); Fuller, 217 Ga. at 694 (1) (a) (allegations of potential harm were insufficient); Elam, 72 Ga. at 162 (1), (2) (same). See also Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130, 132 ( 622 SE2d 469) (2005); Dorough v. Pettus, 215 Ga. 649, 649 ( 112 SE2d 592) (1960); Dorough v. Pettus, 101 Ga. App. 797, 800-01 ( 115 SE2d 440) (1960); Hoffman v. Chester, 204 Ga. 296, 305-06 ( 49 SE2d 760) (1948).See OCGA §§ 9-11-26 to -37 (general discovery procedures); see also OCGA § 9-7-3 ("In all cases in the superior, state, or city courts involving matters of account, if the case shall require it, the judge may appoint an auditor to investigate the matters of account and report the result to the court upon the application of either party and after notice to the opposite party, or upon his own motion when in his judgment the facts and circumstances of any such case require it.").

  9. In re Long

    307 Ga. App. 896 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 5 times
    Remanding case for the probate court to determine whether, and in what amount, beneficiaries owed money to the estate

    See, e.g., Cornelison v. Sansom, 175 Ga. 467, 470 ( 165 SE 264) (1932) (duty of administrator to recover estate funds held by another). OCGA § 15-9-30 (a) (1), (10). Accord Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130 ( 622 SE2d 469) (2005). (b) The retirement funds.

  10. Crowe v. Elder

    308 Ga. App. 529 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Greenway v. Hamilton, 280 Ga. 652, 654-655 (2) ( 631 SE2d 689) (2006). see Heath v. Sims, 242 Ga. App. 691, 693 (1) ( 531 SE2d 115) (2000) (a claim that an executor breached his fiduciary duty does not fall outside of the probate court's jurisdiction simply because damages are sought). See also Benefield v. Martin, 276 Ga. App. 130, 131-132 ( 622 SE2d 469) (2005) (probate court had jurisdiction over claims for fraud and breach of contract related to allegations that executors breached their fiduciary duties to distribute the assets of an estate; equity jurisdiction was not required where plaintiff sought to recover damages, thus superior court had no basis for exercising concurrent jurisdiction). Judgment affirmed.