On February 21, 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals decided the case of In Re Estate of Anne Smith Florance. In that case, Florance had executed a revocable trust during her life and a Will pouring the remainder of her estate into the trust. The trust was first established in 1997 and amended several times until the final amendment in 2013. The same day as the final amendment, Florance executed an assignment, irrevocably transferring her remaining assets into the trust.

Bates, the executor and trustee, filed the Will with the Court, but did not offer it for probate in 2013. He told Anne Howell, Florane’s niece, that she would receive $25,000 under the trust. Howell then filed a petition in probate court, claiming that Florance died intestate and seeking to have herself appointed as administrator of the estate. Howell also filed an ex parte petition for a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Bates to stop him from selling Florance’s home and transferring the proceeds from the sale to the trust.

Bate responded by filing a declaratory judgment action in Superior Court seeking an order finding that the trust was valid. He also filed a claim alleging Howell was attempting to unlawfully restrain administration of the trust. The Superior Court granted Bate’s motion for summary judgment on the validity of the trust, but granted Howell’s motion for summary judgment on the unlawful restraint issue. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment on the validity of the trust and reversed Howell’s temporary victory finding Howell liable as a matter of law for wrongful restraint.

Meanwhile, Bates filed a petition to probate Florance’s Will and Howell filed a caveat. Bates objected to the caveat, challenging Howell’s standing. The probate court found that all blood relatives have standing to file a caveat. Bates sought review of that order. While Bates’ interlocutory application was pending, Howell filed a “joint notice of amendment” on behalf of herself and the other caveators “removing the claim contesting the validity of the Will of Anne S. Florance.”

With this record, the Court of Appeals found it could review Howell’s standing. “As the Supreme Court of Georgia has held, standing is in essence the question of whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues, and litigants must establish their standing to raise issues before they are entitled to have a court adjudicate those issues.” Further,

The question of who has standing to caveat a will has been determined on a case by case basis, the general statement of the rule being that a will may be contested by any person interested in the estate of the deceased, but cannot be contested by strangers. A person who will be injured by probate of a will, or who will benefit by its not being probated, has an interest in the proceeding so as to provide the necessary standing to caveat.

The Court of Appeals found that Howell had “no interest, potential or otherwise. It is undisputed that Florance’s will poured over all assets into the trust. The validity of that trust has already been established. … By withdrawing her challenge to the will itself, Howell has rendered herself a stranger to the will and deprived herself of standing to file a caveat.” Because she lacked standing, she could not file a caveat to the Will, including a caveat to Bates as executor.

The decision below was reversed.