O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 23-3-44 (2019)

Redemption and notice

✓ 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

Proceedings quia timet may be used to remove clouds on title caused by equities of redemption following tax sales; provided, however, that the length of time for redemption shall remain as provided by law and nothing in this Code section shall preclude the necessity of giving all parties at interest notice of this proceeding.

History

Code 1981, § 23-3-44, enacted by Ga. L. 2000, p. 1408, § 1; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 23; Ga. L. 2001, p. 4, § 23.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Boyd v. JohnGalt Holdings, LLC, 294 Ga. 640, 755 S.E.2d 675 (2014).

PART 2 QUIA TIMET AGAINST ALL THE WORLD JUDICIAL DECISIONS Proper use of Quiet Title Act found. - Petition to remove a 20-year leasehold interest as a cloud on the title of property was a proper use of the Quiet Title Act. Cowron & Co. v. Shehadeh, 268 Ga. 383, 490 S.E.2d 82 (1997). Written findings required. - Trial court abused the court’s discretion when the court granted the association judgment on the association’s counterclaim to quiet title without making any specific declaration thereto as the Quiet Title Act, O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq., required that a trial court make written findings of fact

when ruling on such a claim. Holman v. Glen Abbey Homeowners Ass’n, No. A20A0895, 2020 Ga. App. LEXIS 437 ( July 28, 2020). Findings of master and court to be upheld unless erroneous. - In an action to quiet title brought under O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60, et seq., the findings of the special master and adopted by the trial court will be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Seignious v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth., 252 Ga. 69, 311 S.E.2d 808 (1984).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2004–2016 · leading case: Boyd v. Johngalt Holdings, LLC, 755 S.E.2d 675 (Ga. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Boyd v. Johngalt Holdings, LLC, 755 S.E.2d 675 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 2× “” See OCGA § 23-3-44 (“Proceedings quia timet may be used to remove clouds on title caused by equities of redemption following tax sales .”
Johnson v. Red Hill Assocs., Inc., 602 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, although the property involved here was purchased at a tax sale by Red Hill Associates, that does not alone remove it from conventional quia timet actions since OCGA§ 23-3-44, part of the conventional quia timet statute, specifically approves the use of quia timet…”
Peter B. Mancuso v. Tdga, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “However, TDGA asserts, and we agree, that because this appeal is from a judgment entered in a conventional quia timet action that was brought to remove a cloud from the title of real property caused by equities of redemption following a tax 1 See OCGA § 48-4-45.”
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.