## Facts

- Harold Cole died intestate, survived by his second wife, Audrey Cole, and children from his first marriage.
- After marrying Harold, Audrey sold her prior home and used the proceeds, without Harold’s financial contribution, to purchase a new home.
- Title to the new home was taken in both Audrey’s and Harold’s names jointly, without a right of survivorship.
- In probate proceedings, the court applied the statutory presumption that placing title jointly when one spouse supplies consideration reflects a gift between spouses and found Harold held a one-half interest.
- Audrey appealed to superior court, where a jury found the home belonged entirely to Audrey based on a purchase money resulting trust.
- At the jury trial, over a hearsay objection, Audrey testified that Harold told her he could not contribute to the purchase until he finished paying child support for his children.
- The children appealed, challenging only the admission of that testimony as hearsay.

## Issues

1. Whether the appeal involved a constitutional “case[] involving title to land” such that jurisdiction belonged in the Georgia Supreme Court rather than the Georgia Court of Appeals.
2. Whether the trial court reversibly erred by admitting, over hearsay objection, Audrey’s testimony about Harold’s statement regarding his inability to contribute due to child-support obligations.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held it had jurisdiction because the dispute was not an action at law to recover land or possession, but a determination of ownership interests in property already possessed by Audrey.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Audrey.
- The court held Harold’s statement was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule as a declaration against interest.
- Because the challenged evidence was properly admitted, the jury’s finding of a purchase money resulting trust in Audrey’s favor was not disturbed.

## Legal Principles

- For appellate-jurisdiction purposes, “cases involving title to land” are limited to actions at law (e.g., ejectment and statutory substitutes) seeking recovery of land based on presently enforceable legal title against a party in possession.
- A dispute seeking only a determination of whether a decedent held an interest in property—where neither side seeks to obtain possession from the other—does not qualify as a constitutional “title to land” case allocating jurisdiction to the Georgia Supreme Court.
- When one spouse provides the purchase money and title is placed jointly, Georgia law recognizes a statutory presumption of a gift between spouses, but that presumption may be rebutted by proof supporting a purchase money resulting trust.
- An out-of-court statement by a deceased declarant that is self-disserving as to the declarant’s financial contribution or ownership interest may be admitted as a declaration against interest, notwithstanding the hearsay rule.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a jury verdict awarding the marital home entirely to the surviving spouse, holding that the appeal was within the Court of Appeals’ jurisdiction and that the decedent’s statement about his inability to contribute was admissible as a declaration against interest supporting a purchase money resulting trust.


Cole v. Cole, 205 Ga. App. 332, 422 S.E.2d 230 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992)