Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448(Ga. L. 1966, p. 443, § 2.)
- For note discussing problems with venue in Georgia, and proposing statutory revisions to improve the resolution of venue questions, see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 254 (1972).
- In a purchaser's quiet title action against the executor of a testatrix's estate, the trial court did not err in adopting the report of a special master and in decreeing that fee simple title to the land was vested in the purchaser because the purchaser acquired title to the property by virtue of a tax sale and deed, which was conducted in accordance with O.C.G.A. § 48-4-1 et seq.; a title search showed the testatrix's nephew as holding record title to the property, but out of caution, both the nephew and the executor were served with notice of the tax sale, the tax commissioner met with the executor prior to the sale and offered to accept payment for the back taxes, but the executor failed to do so, and the property was sold to the purchaser, with the overage going to the nephew, and the executor did not timely seek to exercise a right of redemption under O.C.G.A. § 48-4-40. Mann v. Blalock, 286 Ga. 541, 690 S.E.2d 375 (2010).
- In a purchaser's quiet title action against the executor of a testatrix's estate, the trial court did not err in adopting the report of a special master and in decreeing that fee simple title to the land was vested in the purchaser because the trial court was authorized to find that the executor's prior quiet title action failed to convey any interest in the property to the executor and to decree that the judgment entered in that action be removed as a cloud upon the purchaser's title when the prior quiet title proceeding was procedurally deficient; the quiet title petition was not verified as required by O.C.G.A. § 23-3-62(b), it did not include a plat of survey of the land as required by § 23-3-62(c), a lis pendens was not filed contemporaneously with the filing of the petition as required by § 23-3-62(d), the petition was not submitted to an authorized special master as required by O.C.G.A. § 23-3-63, and the record failed to establish service on any party as required by O.C.G.A. § 23-3-65(b). Mann v. Blalock, 286 Ga. 541, 690 S.E.2d 375 (2010).
- In a borrower's quiet title action against two lenders, the documents attached to the complaint and answer reflected that the borrower had granted two deeds to secure debt to the lenders, and the borrower therefore did not have legal title to the property absent evidence that the borrower had satisfied the debts; therefore, dismissal of the borrower's petition under O.C.G.A. § 23-3-62 was proper. The trial court was not required to refer the case to a special master prior to dismissal for failure to state a claim. Montia v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 341 Ga. App. 867, 801 S.E.2d 907 (2017).
- Trial court erred in finding that a neighbor was the rightful owner of certain property because there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the neighbor owned the disputed property either by deed or by adverse possession; the legal description of the property contained in the neighbor's deed did not include the disputed property, and since the evidence showed that, at most, the neighbor made a claim to the disputed property for only eighteen years before being challenged by the landowners, the neighbor's claim to have gained prescriptive title to the property through adverse possession under O.C.G.A. §§ 44-5-161 and44-5-165 failed as a matter of law. Washington v. Brown, 290 Ga. 477, 722 S.E.2d 65 (2012).
Evidence supported the trial court's conclusion that landowners did not own the disputed property because the landowners' occasional maintenance and use of the disputed property did not amount to the type of exclusive possession for twenty years that would support a claim for prescriptive title under O.C.G.A. §§ 44-5-161 and44-5-165. Washington v. Brown, 290 Ga. 477, 722 S.E.2d 65 (2012).
Cited in Selby v. Gilmer, 240 Ga. 241, 240 S.E.2d 80 (1977); Middleton v. Robinson, 241 Ga. 174, 244 S.E.2d 7 (1978); Capers v. Camp, 244 Ga. 7, 257 S.E.2d 517 (1979); In re Rivermist Homeowners Ass'n, 244 Ga. 515, 260 S.E.2d 897 (1979); Smith v. Georgia Kaolin Co., 264 Ga. 755, 449 S.E.2d 85 (1994); Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc., 266 Ga. 472, 467 S.E.2d 517 (1996); Resseau v. Bland, 268 Ga. 634, 491 S.E.2d 809 (1997).
- Statute requiring filing of formal notice of lis pendens in certain classes of cases as affecting common-law doctrine of lis pendens in other cases, 10 A.L.R. 306.
Right of one not in possession to maintain suit to remove cloud on title in case of fraud, 36 A.L.R. 698.
Right to secure new or successive notice of lis pendens in same or new action after loss or cancellation of original notice, 52 A.L.R.2d 1308.
Total Results: 11
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-02-06
Citation: 290 Ga. 477, 722 S.E.2d 65, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 346, 2012 WL 360511, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 135
Snippet: in part. All the Justices concur. OCGA § 23-3-62 (a) provides that “[t]he proceeding in rem shall
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2010-02-08
Citation: 690 S.E.2d 375, 286 Ga. 541, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 328, 2010 Ga. LEXIS 145
Snippet: OCGA § 23-3-62(b); it did not include a plat of survey of the land as required by OCGA § 23-3-62(c); a
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-11-17
Citation: 670 S.E.2d 415, 284 Ga. 651, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 3672, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 981
Snippet: county in which the land is situated" (OCGA § 23-3-62(a)), the trial "court, upon receipt of the petition
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2002-07-15
Citation: 566 S.E.2d 662, 275 Ga. 336, 2002 Fulton County D. Rep. 2097, 2002 Ga. LEXIS 588
Snippet: upon which relief can be granted. Under OCGA § 23-3-62(b), a petition to quiet title must contain a particular
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-10-22
Citation: 274 Ga. 413, 554 S.E.2d 175, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 3156, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 824
Snippet: they claimed Fain failed to comply with OCGA § 23-3-62 (c), which requires certain documentation to be
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-06-01
Citation: 516 S.E.2d 779, 271 Ga. 161, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 2068, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 508
Snippet: documents were attached as required by OCGA § 23-3-62(c)). The City of Gray was named as a potential
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1998-02-23
Citation: 498 S.E.2d 255, 269 Ga. 109, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 631, 1998 Ga. LEXIS 272
Snippet: therefore, comply with the requirements of OCGA § 23-3-62(b). The trial court adopted the special master's
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-10-14
Citation: 491 S.E.2d 809, 268 Ga. 634, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3764, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 646, 1997 WL 629588
Snippet: constructive notice, which was done here.[4] OCGA § 23-3-62(b), (c). Moreover, the court appointed a guardian
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1996-03-04
Citation: 467 S.E.2d 517, 266 Ga. 472, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 865, 1996 Ga. LEXIS 89
Snippet: sought because they did not comply with OCGA § 23-3-62. The special master specifically found that the
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1995-03-13
Citation: 265 Ga. 160, 454 S.E.2d 515
Snippet: Carley, Justice. Pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-62, plaintiff filed a petition to quiet title to several tracts
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1994-10-17
Citation: 264 Ga. 755, 449 S.E.2d 85, 94 Fulton County D. Rep. 3410, 1994 Ga. LEXIS 837
Snippet: county in which the land is situated." OCGA § 23-3-62 (a). Smith followed this statutory requirement