O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-6-69 (2019)

Effect of map and plat recordation requirements

✓ 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

(a) Failure to meet the requirements of Code Sections 15-6-67 and 15-6-68 or the recording of an improper plat by the clerk shall not, in and of itself, affect or invalidate any legal description or legal instrument based on such plat. (b) Nothing in Code Sections 15-6-67 and 15-6-68 shall be deemed to invalidate any map or plat made prior to July 1, 1978, nor shall anything in those Code sections be deemed to require the clerk of the court to prepare or maintain a record of each individual land lot for any plat of survey recorded in the clerk’s office prior to July 1, 1978.

History

Ga. L. 1933, p. 193, §§ 3, 4; Code 1933, §§ 24-2718, 24-2719; Ga. L.

1961, p. 105, § 1; Ga. L. 1962, p. 632, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p. 1616, §§ 4, 5.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Admissibility of plat not meeting recordation requirement. - If a plat was admitted as evidence in a boundary dispute even though the plat did not meet the technical requirements for recorda-

tion, the admission of the plat was proper for the purpose of illustrating other competent evidence about the boundary. Purcell v. C. Goldstein & Sons, 264 Ga. App. 443, 448 S.E.2d 174 (1994).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Clerks not authorized to record photocopies of plats. - Clerks of superior courts are not authorized under O.C.G.A. § 15-6-67, O.C.G.A. § 15-6-68, or O.C.G.A. § 15-6-69 to record photocopies of plats, although such a recording will not affect or invalidate any legal description or legal instrument based on such plat. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U89-4.

Maximum size of plat not limited by section. - Former Code 1933, §§ 24-2716 through 24-2719 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-6-67 through 15-6-69) did not prescribe a maximum uniform size of plat to be filed with the clerks of superior courts of this state which did not use microfilming procedures for the recording of plats, and the only maximum limitation

on the size of plats was that the plats must be capable of being recorded in binders provided by the clerk of court without being folded in any way. 1978 Op. Att’y Gen. No. 78-80. Plats reduced in size are accept-

able. - Clerks of superior courts may accept for recording plats which have been reduced in size if the plats comply with the requirements of O.C.G.A. § 15-6-69. 1989 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U89-4.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Purcell v. C. Goldstein & Sons, Inc., 448 S.E.2d 174 (Ga. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Purcell v. C. Goldstein & Sons, Inc., 448 S.E.2d 174 (Ga. 1994). · cites it 2× “Nothing in that Code section, which deals only with recordation of plats, refers to the admissibility of plats.”

Andrew W. Bell v. Marina Lopez (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, for the aforementioned reasons, the trial court committed no error in dismissing Bell’s quiet title and ejectment claims.”

Edgewater Hall Enter., LLC v. City of Canton (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 15-6-69 (a). Thus, because the declaration of taking at issue is such a “legal instrument,” see Williams v.”

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.