I give, bequeath and devise all of my business interests, both tangible and intangible, real or personal, connected to the business known as Traditional Fine Art, Ltd. to James S. Simmons, Elery Stinson, James E. Haege and Sharon Haege England, per stirpes. It is specifically the intent of this provision that Steve [sic] S. Simmons enjoy, after this bequest, thirty four (34%) percent of the outstanding member certificates, that Elery Stinson enjoy seventeen (17%) percent of the outstanding member certificates, that James E. Haege and Sharon Haege England each enjoy twenty four and one half (24.5%) percent of the outstanding member certificates. Simmons and Stinson appealed, and in a split decision, the Court of Appeals reversed. Simmons v. England, 323 Ga.App. 251, 746 S.E.2d 862 (2013). The majority of the Court of Appeals looked to the intention of the testator as evidenced by the plain terms of his will, and it concluded that Haege evidently meant to differentiate between his personal property “connected with the business known as Traditional Fine Art, Ltd.” and his other “personal assets.
Of course, our Supreme Court has the final word on the meaning of our Constitution. See Simmons v. England, 323 Ga. App. 251, 252 n. 1, 746 S.E.2d 862 (2013), affirmed 295 Ga. 1, 757 S.E.2d 111 (2014) (addressing the allocation of jurisdiction between the appellate courts). But we must do our best to discharge our assignment agreeably to the text of the Constitution.