Legal Opinion

Preuss v. STOKES PREUSS

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided September 16, 2002No. S02A0834PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Sears, Presiding Justice.

This appeal involves the issue whether an in terrorem clause in a will applies to an action to remove a co-executor of the will. The probate court ruled that the clause did not bar such an action, and for the reasons that follow, we affirm.

The appellant, Charles Preuss (Mr. Preuss), and the appellee, Willowreen Stokes-Preuss (Ms. Stokes-Preuss), are the co-executors of Harold Preuss’s will. Mr. Preuss and Ms. Stokes-Preuss are also beneficiaries under the will. The will contains an in terrorem clause that provides that if any beneficiary of the will contests

the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Cohen v. ReismanSupreme Court of Georgia · 1948
  2. Conte v. Conte, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)2001
  3. Plumleigh v. FerberCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
  4. Linkous v. National Bank of GeorgiaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Sinclair v. SinclairSupreme Court of Georgia · 2008
  2. Callaway v. WillardCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2013
  3. In RE ESTATE OF Louise Ray BURKHALTER.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 2017
  4. Cox v. FowlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 2005
  5. Cox v. FowlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 2005

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API