Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 10-6-30 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 10 COMMERCE AND TRADE

Section 6. Agency, 10-6-1 through 10-6-142.

ARTICLE 2 RELATIONS BETWEEN PRINCIPAL AND AGENT

10-6-30. Agents and fiduciaries to keep accounts; effect of neglect.

It shall be the duty of agents, trustees, administrators, guardians, conservators, receivers, and all other fiduciaries to keep their accounts in a regular manner and to be always ready with them supported by proper vouchers; neglect of this duty shall be ground for charging them with interest on balances on hand and with costs.

(Civil Code 1895, § 3007; Civil Code 1910, § 3579; Code 1933, § 4-211; Ga. L. 2006, p. 805, § 2/SB 534.)

History of section.

- This Code section is derived from the decisions in Dowling v. Feeley, 72 Ga. 557 (1884), and Poullain v. Poullain, 76 Ga. 420, 4 S.E. 92 (1886).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Proof of compliance with section.

- Burden of proof is upon the agent to show compliance with this section. Dodge v. Hatchett, 118 Ga. 883, 45 S.E. 667 (1903).

While ordinarily one attacking a return of a guardian has the burden to impeach the correctness thereof, the burden of proof is upon the guardian to show compliance with this section. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Supporting claim with vouchers.

- When a receiver is called upon for an accounting, the burden is upon the receiver to support the claim for expenditures by proper vouchers or to show some sufficient reason why the receiver cannot do so. Dodge v. Hatchett, 118 Ga. 883, 45 S.E. 667 (1903); Merritt v. George, 168 Ga. 497, 148 S.E. 334 (1929).

Proper accounting and payment over by agent is presumed.

- There is a legal presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that an agent has performed the agent's duty and paid over and accounted to the agent's principal for moneys collected by the agent in the agent's capacity as agent, and the burden is on the principal to show the contrary. Kelley v. Carolina Life Ins. Co., 48 Ga. App. 106, 171 S.E. 847 (1933).

Guardian making an annual return should lay the guardian's account before the probate court, plainly setting forth, with sufficient certainty, the guardian's charges against the ward. This account is the case the guardian should prove. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Vouchers are the guardian's evidence to support the guardian's account. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Vouchers entitled to no weight as evidence.

- Vouchers are entitled to no weight as evidence on the score that the probate court allowed the vouchers. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Annual returns of a guardian, allowed by the probate court, are only prima facie evidence of the correctness thereof, and in an application for a settlement the returns may be attacked by the ward, the burden being on the ward to impeach the returns. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Approval of returns is not final, conclusive judgment.

- Approval of returns by the probate court, made when the ward was an infant and unable to question the legality and accuracy of such returns and of the expenditures charged against the estate, is not intended to mean a final, conclusive judgment, but only a conditional judgment contingent upon further needs. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Returns may be attacked by ward upon reaching majority.

- Purported vouchers or receipts are not alone sufficient to constitute conclusive evidence that such expenditures were made. Their approval by the court being prima facie only, an attack by the ward, upon discovering after reaching majority that such expenditures were not made and that there were not proper vouchers attached to the items of the returns including such expenditures, is not subject to dismissal. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941).

Cited in Oslin v. State, 161 Ga. 967, 132 S.E. 542 (1926); Allen v. Southern Ins. Sec. Corp., 54 Ga. App. 316, 187 S.E. 714 (1936); Thomas v. State, 87 Ga. App. 765, 75 S.E.2d 193 (1953); International Horizons, Inc. v. Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 16 Bankr. 484 (N.D. Ga. 1981).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

County administrator/county guardian may aggregate the funds of the estates the administrator administers in a single fiduciary account provided that accurate records are maintained separately identifying the monies and disbursements of each estate included in the aggregation. 1982 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U82-31.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 3 Am. Jur. 2d, Agency, §§ 192, 214, 222, 225.

24 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Trusts, § 248 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 2A C.J.S., Agency, §§ 313, 314, 315, 320.

ALR.

- Authority of agent to assent to account stated, 2 A.L.R. 71.

Right of agent to offset his own claim against collection made for principal, 2 A.L.R. 132.

Liability of receiver in his official capacity for torts or negligence of receivership employees, 10 A.L.R. 1055.

Necessity of proof by trustee that charges or expenses for which he claims credit upon an accounting were proper disbursements, 13 A.L.R. 364.

Rate of interest chargeable against guardians, executors or administrators, and trustees, 37 A.L.R. 447; 55 A.L.R. 950; 112 A.L.R. 833; 156 A.L.R. 936.

Deposit by trustee of funds of separate trusts in a single bank account, 117 A.L.R. 179.

When statute of limitations commences to run against action by principal to recover money or other property from agent, 141 A.L.R. 361.

Guardian's liability for interest on ward's funds, 72 A.L.R.2d 757.

Cases Citing Georgia Code 10-6-30 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 1

Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-11-19

Citation: 555 S.E.2d 459, 274 Ga. 624, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 3476, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 903

Snippet: with them supported by proper vouchers.” OCGA § 10-6-30. I find no merit in the State’s argument that