O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31 (2019)

Authority of judge of probate court to grant administration

✓ 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

The judge of the probate court can grant administration only on the estate of a person who was: (1) A resident at the time of his death of the county where the application is made; or (2) A nonresident of the state, with property in the county where the application is made or with a bona fide cause of action against some person therein.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 308; Code 1868, § 368; Code 1873, § 333; Code 1882, § 333; Civil Code 1895, § 4234; Civil Code 1910, § 4792; Code 1933, § 24-1902.

Annotations

Cross references. - Jurisdiction of

probate court over probate of wills generally, § 53-3-1. Law reviews. - For annual survey article discussing trial practice and procedure, see 51 Mercer L. Rev. 487 (1999).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Residence of testator at death confers exclusive jurisdiction on ordinary (now probate judge) of that county. City of Blakely v. Hilton, 150 Ga. 27, 102 S.E. 340 (1920). Administration of estate of county property of nonresident decedent. - If a nonresident of the state dies, owning bonds and promissory notes, which are in the possession of one residing in a county of this state, such person may be said to have property in that county, and the

probate judge of that county may grant administration on the deceased’s estate. Robbins v. National Bank, 241 Ga. 538, 246 S.E.2d 660 (1978). Cause of action is personalty, and because the situs of personalty follows the owner thereof and is controlled by the domicile of the owner, a cause of action belonging to a nonresident could not be probated, and an attorney’s files that made up that cause were likewise not property subject to probate. Escareno v.

Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 172 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Ga. 1997). Bonds and notes of nonresident held by person in county are property. McLaren v. Bradford, 52 Ga. 648 (1874). Cause of action or injury sufficient basis. - Administration of a nonresident’s estate does not require ownership of tangible property in the state, but rather, the presence of a cause of action or injury to the decedent is a sufficient basis. Escareno v. Carl Nolte Sohne GmbH, 270 Ga. 264, 507 S.E.2d 743 (1998). Pending lawsuit of decedent. - Statute authorized the appointment of an administrator for an estate in the county where the decedent had a pending lawsuit. Escareno v. Noltina Crucible and Refractory Corp., 163 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 1998). Jurisdiction is not lost because of prior appointment of administrator in the state where the nonresident owner was domiciled at the time of death. Ott v. Hutchinson, 91 Ga. 31, 16 S.E. 106 (1892);

Jones v. Cooner, 142 Ga. 127, 82 S.E. 445 (1914). Administrator should be appointed when estate may be created. - If there is no tangible estate, but when there is something to be done by an administrator which in contemplation of law may create an estate, such as suing for the death of a decedent, an administrator should be appointed. Robbins v. National Bank, 241 Ga. 538, 246 S.E.2d 660 (1978). Cited in McPhail v. Barnhill, 42 Ga. App. 505, 156 S.E. 466 (1931); Smith v. Scarborough, 182 Ga. 157, 185 S.E. 105 (1936); Scarborough v. Long, 186 Ga. 412, 197 S.E. 796 (1938); Bell v. Southwell, 376 F.2d 659 (5th Cir. 1967); Guyett v. Guyett, 160 Ga. App. 622, 287 S.E.2d 632 (1981); Escareno v. Carl Nolte Sohne GmbH & Co., 77 F.3d 407 (11th Cir. 1996); Wright v. Goss, 229 Ga. App. 393, 494 S.E.2d 23 (1997); Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 139 F.3d 1456 (11th Cir. 1998); Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 172 F.R.D. 517 (N.D. Ga. 1994).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Power to impound assets of nonresident decedent in state, 44 A.L.R. 801.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1993–2008 · leading case: Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 172 F.R.D. 517 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 172 F.R.D. 517 (N.D. Ga. 1994). · cites it 12× “1 Alternatively, plaintiff argues that his cause of action in this case constitutes “property” under Georgia law and that the pendency of the case before a federal court located in Fulton County means that plaintiff died “with property in the county” under O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31.…”
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 152 F.R.D. 661 (N.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 9× “” O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31 (1990). 3 “Thus, the jurisdiction of the [probate court] of any county of this State to appoint an administrator upon the estate of any deceased nonresident is made to depend solely upon the ownership of property within the county, or the existence of a bona…”
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 172 F.R.D. 522 (N.D. Ga. 1997). · cites it 8× “In addition to his original argument that O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31 requires only that a case be filed in a Georgia county, not that the defendant be in that county, plaintiff raised two new related arguments: that the papers and files maintained by plaintiffs counsel in Fulton County,…”
Kean v. Marshall, 669 S.E.2d 463 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “One’s legal residence for the purposes of [OCGA § 15-9-31] is the same as his domicile.”
Alejandro Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., Carl Nolte Sohne Gmbh, 139 F.3d 1456 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “The Plaintiff contends that the Georgia probate court acted within the jurisdiction conferred by O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31, which authorizes probate courts to grant administration of estates, when it appointed Philip P.”
Wright v. Goss, 494 S.E.2d 23 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 15-9-31. One’s legal residence for the purposes of this statute is the same as his domicile.”
Escareno v. Carl Nolte Sohne GmbH & Co., 77 F.3d 407 (11th Cir. 1996). “Defendant’s contention that the probate court lacked jurisdiction centered on paragraph (2) of O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31, which provides: 15-9-31.”
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 163 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 6× “The Plaintiff contends that pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31 the Georgia Probate Court acted within its jurisdiction when it appointed Philip P.”
In re Est. of Adriance, 603 S.E.2d 521 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “” Pursuant to OCGA § 15-9-31, The judge of the probate court can grant administration only on the estate of a person who was: (1) A resident at the time of his death of the county where the application is made; or (2) A nonresident of the state, with property in the county where…”
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible, 163 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “The Plaintiff contends that the Georgia probate court acted within the jurisdiction conferred by O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31, which authorizes probate courts to grant administration of estates, when it appointed Philip P.”
Escareno v. Carl Nolte Sohne GmbH, 507 S.E.2d 743 (Ga. 1998). · cites it 8× “Because we conclude that OCGA § 15-9-31 (2) authorizes the appointment of an administrator for an estate in the county where the decedent had a pending lawsuit, we answer the question in the affirmative.”
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible, 163 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 3× “The Plaintiff contends that the Georgia probate court acted within the jurisdiction conferred by O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31, which authorizes probate courts to grant administration of estates, when it appointed Philip P.”
— 15-9-31(2) — 1 case
Escareno v. Noltina Crucible & Refractory Corp., 163 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 1998). “The Plaintiff contends that pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-9-31 the Georgia Probate Court acted within its jurisdiction when it appointed Philip P.”
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.