O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 29-11-10 (2019)

Determination of connection with state

✓ 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

In determining under Code Section 29-11-12 and subsection (e) of Code Section 29-11-20 whether a respondent has a significant connection with a particular state, the court shall consider:

(1) The location of the respondent’s family and other persons required to be notified of the guardianship proceeding or conservatorship proceeding;

(2) The length of time the respondent at any time was physically present in the state and the duration of any absence;

(3) The location of the respondent’s property;

(4) The extent to which the respondent has ties to the state such as voting registration, state or local tax return filing, vehicle registration, driver’s license, social relationship, and receipt of services; and

(5) The extent to which the respondent considers or, in the absence of an impairment of mental faculties, would consider himself or herself to have a significant connection with the state.

History

(Code 1981, § 29-11-10, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 563, § 1/HB 954.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 2019–2020 · leading case: In Re Est. of Kevin Lee Hanson (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In Re Est. of Kevin Lee Hanson (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “OCGA § 29-11-10 lists five factors that the trial court “shall consider” in determining whether a proposed ward has a significant connection with a state,2 and the girlfriend argues that the trial court failed to consider any of these factors before determining that Kevin had a…”

Rebecca Steen-Jorgensen v. Toni Kay Huff (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “” OCGA § 29-11-2 (13); see also OCGA § 29-11-10. The “significant-connection state” may have jurisdiction if the respondent has a home state but that state’s court has declined to exercise jurisdiction because another state is a more “appropriate forum.”

In Re Est. of Kevin Lee Hanson (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 29-11-10. 9 The probate court plainly erred by relying on this subsection because it is undisputed that Florida was Kevin’s home state and there is no evidence in the record that as of July 3, 2018, the date of the petition for permanent orders, a court in Florida had…”

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.