O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 23-3-63 (2019)

Submission to special master

✓ 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 court, upon receipt of the petition together with the plat and instruments filed therewith, shall submit the same to a special master who shall be a person who is authorized to practice law in this state and is a resident of the judicial circuit wherein the action is brought.

History

Ga. L. 1966, p. 443, § 3.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey of

law on real property, see 62 Mercer L. Rev. 283 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Default improper if no special master appointed. - Default judgment against owners in a quiet title action based on their failure to answer was improper because, once the in rem proceeding was instituted, the trial court was required, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 23-3-63, to submit the matter to a special master, and a special master was never appointed such that service could have properly been completed pursuant to the Quiet Title Act, O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq.; since the Quiet Title Act provided specific rules of practice and procedure with respect to an in rem quiet title action against all the world, the Civil Practice Act, O.C.G.A. § 9-11-1 et. seq., was inapplicable. Woodruff v. Morgan County, 284 Ga. 651, 670 S.E.2d 415 (2008). Appointment of special master required. - In a quiet title action, the trial court erred by failing to appoint a special master because Georgia’s Quiet Title Act, O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq., requires a trial court to appoint a special master and for that special master to make a report of the

special master’s findings to the trial court. DOCO Credit Union v. Chambers, 330 Ga. App. 633, 768 S.E.2d 808 (2015). Quiet title proceeding procedurally deficient. - 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). Dismissal for failure to state a claim with submission to special master. - 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). Payment of special master’s fees not prerequisite to appeal. - Provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-7-22(c) requiring the payment of auditors’ fees prior to the filing of an appeal did not apply to special masters appointed under the Quiet Title Act, O.C.G.A. § 23-3-60 et seq., pursuant to O.C.G.A. §§ 23-3-43 and 23-3-63, and an appeal was not dismissed due to failure to pay the special master’s fees. Davis v.

Harpagon Co., LLC, 300 Ga. App. 644, 686 S.E.2d 259 (2009) was overruled to the extent it was to the contrary. Nix v. 230 Kirkwood Homes, LLC, 300 Ga. 91, 793 S.E.2d 402 (2016). Cited in Georgia, Ashburn, Sylvester & Camilla Ry. v. Johnson, 226 Ga. 358, 174 S.E.2d 895 (1970); McGee v. Craig, 230 Ga. 553, 198 S.E.2d 165 (1973); South DeKalb Family Branch of YMCA of Metro. Atlanta, Inc. v. Frazier, 236 Ga. 903, 225 S.E.2d 890 (1976); Thornton v. Reb Properties, Inc., 237 Ga. 59, 226 S.E.2d 741 (1976); Higdon v. Gates, 238 Ga. 105, 231 S.E.2d 345 (1976); 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); Walters v. McNeese, 257 Ga. 440, 360 S.E.2d 268 (1987); DRST Holdings, Ltd. v. Agio Corp., 282 Ga. 903, 655 S.E.2d 586 (2008); Whipple v. Hatcher, 283 Ga. 309, 658 S.E.2d 585 (2008); Rhymes v. E. Atlanta Church of God, Inc., 284 Ga. 145, 663 S.E.2d 670 (2008); Keever v. Dellinger, 291 Ga. 860, 734 S.E.2d 874 (2012); Wyatt v. Hizer, 337 Ga. App. 767, 788 S.E.2d 866 (2016); Republic Title Company, LLC v. Freeport Title and Guaranty, Inc., 351 Ga. App. 408, 829 S.E.2d 172 (2019); Tyner v. Edge, 355 Ga. App. 196, 843 S.E.2d 632 (2020).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Muriel Montia v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 801 S.E.2d 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017).
Muriel Montia v. First-Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 801 S.E.2d 907 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “She alleged in her petition that First-Citizens, Ocwen, and HSBC had claims adverse to her interest in the property that were without legal basis and constituted clouds on her title.”
Woodruff v. Morgan Cnty., 670 S.E.2d 415 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 4× “The Woodruffs filed a response, claiming that because a special master had not been appointed pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-63 of the Quiet Title Act, there was no default and therefore no answer was due.”
Nelson v. Georgia Sheriffs Youth Homes, Inc., 686 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 4× “On that list were appellees Georgia Sheriffs Youth Homes (“GSYH”) and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”).”
Whipple v. Hatcher, 658 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 2× “1 OCGA § 23-3-63 provides: The court, upon receipt of the petition together with the plat and instruments filed therewith, shall submit the same to a special master who shall be a person who is authorized to practice law in this state and is a resident of the judicial circuit…”
Rhymes v. East Atlanta Church of God, Inc., 663 S.E.2d 670 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 2× “The petition to quiet title was submitted to a special master pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-63. The special master conducted an evidentiary hearing and filed a report of his findings.”
McGregor v. River Pond Farm, LLC, 719 S.E.2d 546 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The appellants counterclaimed to quiet title and, without requesting a jury trial, asked the superior court to submit the matter to a special master pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-63. After both parties filed motions for summary judgment, the special master issued a report finding a…”
Washington v. Mckibbon Hotel Grp. Inc, 664 S.E.2d 201 (Ga. 2008). · cites it 8× “In accordance with OCGA § 23-3-63, the case was submitted to a special master, who recommended issuance of a decree which vested fee simple title in Appellee.”
Patel Et Al. v. Patel, 802 S.E.2d 871 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “3 Following a hearing attended by Roshni Patel, the *82 trial court acknowledged that the Patels were seeking a default judgment, but instead of granting their motion, sua sponte appointed a special master pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-63, a statutory scheme not invoked by the Patels’…”
Steinichen v. Stancil, 635 S.E.2d 158 (Ga. 2006). · cites it 2× “The trial court submitted the case to a special master, as required by OCGA § 23-3-63, and the parties waived their right under OCGA § 23-3-66 to have a jury trial on any questions of fact.”
Johnson v. Red Hill Assocs., Inc., 602 S.E.2d 572 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 2× “In OCGA § 23-3-43, the special master provisions of OCGA §§ 23-3-63 through 23-3-68 are adopted for conventional quia timet, but the right to a jury trial is specifically excluded.”
Johnson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 773 S.E.2d 810 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Johnson requested that the court declare that the defendants have no estate, right, title or interest in the property and that they be forever enjoined from asserting any such claim.”
Addison v. Reece, 436 S.E.2d 663 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to OCGA § 23-3-63, the trial court appointed a special master to hear appellant’s quiet title claim.”
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.