Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 23-3-67 | Car Wreck Lawyer

TITLE 23 EQUITY

Section 3. Equitable Remedies And Proceedings Generally, 23-3-1 through 23-3-127.

ARTICLE 3 QUIA TIMET

23-3-67. Decree; effect of recordation.

Upon the receipt of the master's report or upon a jury verdict, the court shall issue a decree which shall be recorded in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county or counties wherein the land affected lies and which, when recorded, shall operate to bind the land affected according to the tenor thereof and shall be conclusive upon and against all persons named therein, known or unknown. A marginal reference to the recorded judgments and decree shall be entered upon any recorded instrument stated to be affected thereby.

(Ga. L. 1966, p. 443, § 7.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Demand for jury trial deemed untimely unless filed prior to consideration by special master.

- Where a petitioner fails to file a demand for a jury trial prior to the time the case is heard by a special master, the demand is considered untimely, and will be denied. Brown v. Wilson, 240 Ga. 856, 242 S.E.2d 603 (1978).

Court retained jurisdiction despite role of special master.

- In a quiet title action, there was no merit to the contention that only the special master had jurisdiction to rule upon a motion for summary judgment. In submitting a quiet title case to a special master, a trial court did not cede jurisdiction to render a final decision; O.C.G.A. § 23-3-67 gave only the trial court authority to issue the final decree. Harbuck v. Houston County, 284 Ga. 4, 662 S.E.2d 107 (2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 641, 172 L. Ed. 2d 613 (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).

Adoption of special master's report.

- Trial court did not err by failing to grant an investment company's motion for an oral hearing on the company's exceptions to a special master's report because a trial court was entitled to enter judgment at any time the court chose and could have done so before any exceptions were filed by the company. Therefore, if a trial court may adopt the special master's report and enter judgment even before a party has a chance to file exceptions to the report, then it cannot be error for the trial court to fail to hold an oral hearing on any exceptions before entering judgment. MPP Invs., Inc. v. Cherokee Bank, N.A., 288 Ga. 558, 707 S.E.2d 485 (2011).

Dismissal for failure to describe land triggers res judicata in later action.

- Where petition to quiet title was dismissed for failure to describe land, petitioner was barred by res judicata from instituting a subsequent action for declaratory and injunctive relief based on same facts; res judicata applies not only when case was decided on merits, but also when it could have been so decided, had the case been handled appropriately by the litigants in the original case. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc., v. Woelper, 269 Ga. 109, 498 S.E.2d 255 (1998).

Appellant did not waive objections.

- Quiet title case was remanded to the trial court for it to address the merits of the appellant's motion for a new trial as the appellant's failure to file objections before the trial court adopted a special master's report did not bar the appellant from objecting to the trial court's judgment in a motion for new trial or on appeal since O.C.G.A. § 23-3-67 made no provision for filing exceptions to the special master's report and did not require a trial court to provide notice to the parties and to conduct a hearing before adopting the special master's report. Steinichen v. Stancil, 281 Ga. 75, 635 S.E.2d 158 (2006).

No provision for filing exceptions.

- O.C.G.A. § 23-3-67 makes no provision for filing exceptions to a special master's report in a suit seeking to quiet title, and does not require a trial court to provide notice to the parties and to conduct a hearing before adopting a special master's report; although a trial court is not required to hear exceptions to a special master's report, the trial court must independently evaluate the correctness of the report before adopting it as the judgment of the trial court. Steinichen v. Stancil, 281 Ga. 75, 635 S.E.2d 158 (2006).

Cited in Thornton v. Reb Properties, Inc., 237 Ga. 59, 226 S.E.2d 741 (1976); Heath v. Stinson, 238 Ga. 364, 233 S.E.2d 178 (1977); Glenn v. Allen, 239 Ga. 646, 238 S.E.2d 438 (1977); 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); Keever v. Dellinger, 291 Ga. 860, 734 S.E.2d 874 (2012).

Cases Citing Georgia Code 23-3-67 From Courtlistener.com

Total Results: 8

Keever v. Dellinger

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2012-11-05

Citation: 291 Ga. 860, 734 S.E.2d 874, 2012 Fulton County D. Rep. 3430, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 855, 2012 WL 5381240

Snippet: a jury has now rendered a verdict. See OCGA § 23-3-67. 2. In his motion for new trial and on appeal,

MPP Investments, Inc. v. Cherokee Bank, N.A.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2011-01-10

Citation: 707 S.E.2d 485, 288 Ga. 558

Snippet: to the special master's report. However, OCGA § 23-3-67 "does not require a trial court ... to conduct

Nelson v. GEORGIA SHERIFFS YOUTH HOMES, INC.

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-11-23

Citation: 686 S.E.2d 663, 286 Ga. 192, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3639, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 725

Snippet: of the case and its sole authority under OCGA § 23-3-67 to issue the final decree. Harbuck v. Houston County

Harbuck v. Houston County

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-05-19

Citation: 662 S.E.2d 107, 284 Ga. 4, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 1698, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 432

Snippet: could not grant summary judgment because OCGA § 23-3-67 gives only the trial court authority to issue the

Steinichen v. Stancil

Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2006-09-18

Citation: 281 Ga. 75, 635 S.E.2d 158, 2006 Fulton County D. Rep. 2892, 2006 Ga. LEXIS 574

Snippet: must file it with the superior court.3 OCGA § 23-3-67 provides that “[u]pon the receipt of the master’s

GHG, INC. v. Bryan

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: the reasons advanced. 3. GHG claims that OCGA § 23-3-67 violates due process because it compels the trial

Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc. v. Woelper

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: persons named therein, known or unknown." OCGA § 23-3-67. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment of the trial

Woelper v. Piedmont Cotton Mills, Inc.

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: and conclusions of law with the court. OCGA § 23-3-67. The salient issue is whether the court abused