Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Brunswick Pulp & Paper Co. v. Yeomans
Citations: 258 Ga. 545; 372 S.E.2d 217; 1988 Ga. LEXIS 372Docket: 45588; 45589; 45590
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia; September 16, 1988; Georgia; State Supreme Court
Vivian, Gary, Rafael, and Deborah Nail initiated an equitable partitioning proceeding concerning approximately 10,000 acres of property in Brantley, Glynn, and Wayne Counties, inherited from their grandmother, Georgia Nail Dubberly. Defendants included family members and several companies claiming ownership of parts of the property. The trial court voided and expunged all deeds related to this testamentary property and reserved jurisdiction on other matters, granting interlocutory appeals from all parties involved. Under Dubberly's will, a life estate was granted to six of her children, with the property intended to pass to their lineal descendants per stirpes upon the death of the last child. However, in 1950, the six children divided the property among themselves contrary to the will, resulting in each holding approximately one-sixth of the total acreage. The plaintiffs, born after 1950, argued that these transactions did not affect their rights under the will. The trial court found that the plaintiffs had effectively ratified the 1950 partitioning by accepting benefits from the property, such as using the land, receiving income from timber leases, and using the property as collateral for loans. Consequently, their claims to the property were inconsistent with their claims under the will. The court concluded the plaintiffs were estopped from asserting title contrary to the 1950 partitioning, ruling in favor of the defendants. While the trial court noted that estoppel cannot transfer title, it found no claims justifying the cancellation of the 1950 deeds. Since only the plaintiffs sought relief and were estopped from their claims, the defendants were entitled to final judgment. The plaintiffs held about one-third of the property due to the 1950 partitioning and later conveyances, but their claims to a larger share under the will were unsubstantiated. The trial court's findings were upheld on appeal.