Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(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.)
- If a plat was admitted as evidence in a boundary dispute even though the plat did not meet the technical requirements for recordation, 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).
- 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.
- Former Code 1933, §§ 24-2716 through 24-2719 (see now O.C.G.A. §§ 15-6-67 through15-6-69) 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.
- 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.
Total Results: 1
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-09-19
Citation: 264 Ga. 443, 448 S.E.2d 174, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3050, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 753
Snippet: purpose is evident from the provision in OCGA § 15-6-69 (a) that failure of a plat to meet the requirements