O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-13-2 (2019)

Liability of sheriffs to damage action or contempt

✓ 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

Any sheriff shall be liable to an action for damages or an attachment for contempt of court, at the option of the party, whenever it appears that the sheriff has injured the party by:

(1) Making a false return;

(2) Neglecting to arrest a defendant;

(3) Neglecting to levy on the property of the defendant;

(4) Neglecting to pay over to the plaintiff or his attorney any moneys collected by the sheriff by virtue of any fi. fa. or other legal process; or

(5) Neglecting to make a proper return of any writ, execution, or other process put into the hands of the sheriff. (Laws 1799, Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 576; Code 1863, § 3853; Code 1868, § 3873; Code 1873, § 3949; Code 1882, § 3949; Civil Code 1895, § 4770; Civil Code 1910, § 5342; Code 1933, § 24-202.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey of real property law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 331 (2005); 58 Mercer L. Rev. 367 (2006). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Sovereign immunity waived. - Sheriff ’s claim that the trial court improperly awarded a corporation purchaser the excess funds obtained in a tax sale of real property because the sheriff was entitled to sovereign immunity was rejected as O.C.G.A. § 15-13-2(4) waived the sheriff ’s sovereign immunity to the claim. Barrett v. Marathon Inv. Corp., 268 Ga. App. 196, 601 S.E.2d 516 (2004). Sheriff liable for neglect or violation of duty. - Rule against sheriff is not limited to cases enumerated in the statutes; the sheriff is certainly liable for neglect or violation of duty. Crawford v. Williams, 76 Ga. 792 (1886). Rule against sheriff cannot be brought in favor of a dead man. Lee v. Armstrong, 49 Ga. 609 (1873). Fine paid under a void indictment cannot be recovered by a rule against the sheriff. McDonald v. Sowell, 129 Ga. 242, 58 S.E. 860, 12 Ann. Cas. 701 (1907). Liability for contempt. - Although sheriff may be liable in action for damages, the sheriff is not necessarily liable

for contempt; this latter liability depends on the good faith of the sheriff ’s conduct. Heard v. Callaway, 51 Ga. 314 (1874); In re Smith, 205 Ga. App. 857, 424 S.E.2d 45, cert. denied, 205 Ga. App. 900, 424 S.E.2d 45 (1992). Before failure to levy will come within the terms of this section, it must appear: (1) that the sheriff is in contempt of court; and (2) that the plaintiff was injured by the contempt. Hunter v. Phillips, 56 Ga. 634 (1876) (see now O.C.G.A. § 15-13-2). Failure to sell after levy is as much a breach of official duty as neglecting to levy. Wilkins v. American Freehold Land Mtg. Co., 106 Ga. 182, 32 S.E. 135 (1898). Sheriff liable to plaintiff if defendant released without bond. - If the sheriff arrests the defendant and discharges the defendant without bond for the defendant’s appearance, the fact that the sheriff takes an obligation from a friend of the defendant to save the sheriff harmless in the event of a recovery by the plaintiff will not keep the sheriff from

being ruled for the money if the plaintiff obtains a judgment and a return of no property is made. DeLongchamp v. J.W. Hicks & Co., 25 Ga. 200 (1858). Receipt of debtor’s check in lieu of execution of process is no defense for

sheriff, and sheriff is liable for any loss. Ketcham v. Hines, 29 Ga. App. 627, 116 S.E. 225 (1923). Cited in A.A. Parker Produce, Inc. v. Mercer, 221 Ga. 449, 145 S.E.2d 237 (1965).

RESEARCH REFERENCES C.J.S. - 21 C.J.S., Courts, §§ 23, 31 et seq. ALR. - Steps to be taken by officer before resale upon default of purchaser at judicial or execution sale, 24 ALR 1330. Personal liability of party who places execution or attachment in hands of official, for wrongful levy thereunder upon property of third person, 91 ALR 922. Liability of sheriff or other officer executing process of execution or attachment for failure to seize sufficient property, 93 ALR 316. Return of service of process in action in

personam showing personal or constructive service in state as subject to attack by showing that defendant was a nonresident and was not served in state, 107 ALR 1342. Duty of sheriff or other officer as to care of property levied upon by him, 138 ALR 710. What amounts to false return of execution or attachment; justification of alleged false return, 157 ALR 194. Use of affidavits to establish contempt, 79 ALR2d 657.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Raw Props., Inc. v. Lawson Et Al., 783 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Raw Props., Inc. v. Lawson Et Al., 783 S.E.2d 161 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “Relying on the last sentence of OCGA § 48-5-137, RPI next draws our attention to OCGA § 15-13-2 (1) and (5), which expressly waives sovereign immunity for sheriffs in an action for damages for the following specific claims: (1) Making a false return; (5) Neglecting to make a…”

Crosby Et Al. v. Johnson Et Al., 779 S.E.2d 446 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “For example, OCGA § 15-13-2 creates an action for damages against a sheriff for making a false return, neglecting to arrest a defendant, neglecting to levy on property, neglecting to pay money collected by legal process, or neglecting to make a proper return of process.”

Barrett v. Marathon Inv. Corp., 601 S.E.2d 516 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “But the General Assembly waived such immunity in OCGA § 15-13-2 (4), which provides that “[a]ny sheriff shall be liable to an action for damages.”

Scott v. Vesta Holdings I, LLC, 620 S.E.2d 447 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 15-13-2 (4); 10 Barrett v. Marathon Investment Corp.”

Bartow Cnty. v. S. Dev., 756 S.E.2d 11 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “For example, a county sheriff, which could be liable in a money rule petition brought under OCGA § 15-13-3, is subject to the explicit statutory waiver of immunity under OCGA § 15-13-2 providing that “[a]ny sheriff shall be liable to an action for damages .”

In Re Smith, 424 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Held: OCGA § 15-13-2 (2) provides: “Any sheriff shall be liable to an action for damages or an attachment for contempt of court, at the option of the party, whenever it appears that the sheriff has injured the party by: .”

Irina Tsoglin v. Theodore Jackson (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 8× “And she argues that the sheriff asserted in his answer to KL’s money-rule petition that KL had not presented a pre-suit demand, an assertion that she argues bars him from claiming otherwise here. “This argument fails at its premise.”

Bartow Cnty., Georgia v. S. Dev., III, L. P. (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “4 Here, Southern has pointed to no statute creating a waiver or any factual scenario warranting a waiver with respect to the claim it brought in its complaint.”

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.