O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 10-6-30 (2019)

Proper accounting required

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

History

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

Annotations

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 Ga. LEXIS 752 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (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 Ga. LEXIS 752 (1903); Merritt v. George, 168 Ga. 497, 148 S.E. 334, 1929 Ga. LEXIS 175 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 478 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (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 Ga. App. LEXIS 356 (1941).

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, §§ 195 et seq., 264 et seq. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. 24 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Trusts, § 248 et seq. C.J.S. 2A C.J.S., Agency, § 311 et seq. 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2001–2001 · leading case: Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001).
Pimper v. State Ex Rel. Simpson, 555 S.E.2d 459 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 4× “" [10] The filing of the final report and accounting in the bankruptcy court regarding the estates of the two corporate defendants has no relevancy to the demand made by the Pimpers for an accounting of their individual assets.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.