Slosberg v. Giller

4 Citing cases

  1. Duncan v. Rawls

    367 Ga. App. 408 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)

    that 314 Ga. 89, 876 S.E.2d 228 (2022).Giller v. Slosberg , 359 Ga. App. 867, 858 S.E.2d 747 (2021)

  2. Giller v. Slosberg

    884 S.E.2d 119 (Ga. Ct. App. 2023)

    The sisters appealed, and this Court issued an opinion reversing the trial court's judgment and remanding the case, specifically holding that (i) the in terrorem clause barred Slosberg's claim as to the trust and resulted in his forfeiture of any benefits from the trust, Giller v. Slosberg, 359 Ga.App. 867, 869-873(1), 858 S.E.2d 747 (2021) ("Slosberg I"), (ii) the trial court erred by imposing a constructive trust without making a finding of unjust enrichment or limiting its award to the amount of any unjust enrichment, id. at 873-877(2), and (iii), 858 S.E.2d 747 if on remand the court determined that the imposition of a constructive trust was proper, the court should consider whether it erred in awarding prejudgment interest and funds that Slosberg may already have received, id. at 977(3), 858 S.E.2d 747. In Slosberg v. Giller, 314 Ga. 89, 876 S.E.2d 228 (2022) ("Slosberg II"), the Supreme Court of Georgia concluded that this Court erred by determining that the in terrorem clause barred Slosberg's undue-influence claim. Id. at 107-108(3), 876 S.E.2d 228.

  3. Duncan v. Rawls

    No. S21C1202 (Ga. Sep. 2, 2022)

    Upon consideration of the petition for certiorari and the response, the petition is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of this Court's subsequent decision in Slosberg v. Giller et al., 314 Ga. 89 (876 S.E.2d __) (2022).

  4. Chambers v. Edwards

    365 Ga. App. 482 (Ga. Ct. App. 2022)

    A no-contest or in terrorem clause "acts as a disinheritance device to dissuade beneficiaries of a trust or a will from challenging the terms of the instrument." Slosberg v. Giller , 314 Ga. 89, 876 S.E.2d 228 (2022).