O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 29-11-15 (2019)

Declining exercise of jurisdiction; factors for determining jurisdiction

✓ 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

(a) A court of this state having jurisdiction under Code Section 29-11-12 to appoint a guardian or conservator may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines at any time that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.

(b) If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (a) of this Code section, it shall either dismiss or stay the proceeding. The court may impose any condition the court considers just and proper, including the condition that a petition for the appointment of a guardian or issuance of a conservatorship order be filed promptly in another state.

(c) In determining whether it is an appropriate forum, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(1) Any expressed preference of the respondent;

(2) Whether abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the respondent has occurred or is likely to occur and which state could best protect the respondent from the abuse, neglect, or exploitation;

(3) The length of time the respondent was physically present in or was a legal resident of this or another state;

(4) The distance of the respondent from the court in each state;

(5) The financial circumstances of the respondent’s estate;

(6) The nature and location of the evidence;

(7) The ability of the court in each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present evidence;

(8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the proceeding; and

(9) If an appointment were made, the court’s ability to monitor the conduct of the guardian or conservator.

History

(Code 1981, § 29-11-15, enacted by Ga. L. 2016, p. 563, § 1/HB 954.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2019–2020 · leading case: Rebecca Steen-Jorgensen v. Toni Kay Huff (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
Rebecca Steen-Jorgensen v. Toni Kay Huff (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “” See OCGA § 29-11-15 (a) (“A court of this state having jurisdiction under [OCGA §] 29-11-12 to appoint a guardian or conservator may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines at any time that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”
In Re Est. of Kevin Lee Hanson (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 4× “The trial court’s order also does not address whether (1) a petition for appointment or order was filed in Florida, (2) an objection to Georgia’s jurisdiction 6 had been filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding, or (3) whether Georgia was an appropriate forum…”
In Re Est. of Kevin Lee Hanson (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “significant connection state” and “[t]he respondent has a home state, a petition for an appointment or order is not pending in a court of that 10 state or another significant-connection state, and, before the court makes the appointment or issues the order”: (i) A petition for…”
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.