Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §29-2-22, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1; Ga. L. 2009, p. 800, § 5/HB 388; Ga. L. 2011, p. 752, § 29/HB 142.)
- Service of process on guardian of incapacitated adult, § 9-11-4(l)(4).
Appointment of guardian ad litem, § 15-11-9.
Rights and duties of permanent guardians of juveniles, § 15-11-242.
Powers of sale when exercisable by successor administrator, trustee, or guardian, § 23-2-116.
- Ga. L. 2009, p. 800, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'Option of Adoption Act.'"
- For article, "The Child as a Party in Interest in Custody Proceedings," see 10 Ga. St. B.J. 577 (1974).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1873, § 1838 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the transfer of a father's petition for custody from Gwinnett County, Georgia, to Douglas County, Georgia, because the "complaint for custody" that the father filed in Gwinnett County fairly was read as a petition to modify, vacate, or revoke the permanent guardianship, a petition over which the Juvenile Court of Douglas County had exclusive jurisdiction under the circumstances. In the Interest of M. F., 298 Ga. 138, 780 S.E.2d 291 (2015).
- Guardian had power to appoint agent to act for guardian during absence in confederate army, and any act of agent within scope of agent's authority would be as valid as that of guardian. Tarpley v. McWhorter, 56 Ga. 410 (1876) (decided under former Code 1873, § 1838).
- Superior court erred in granting an aunt and uncle custody of minor children because the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition for custody since a probate court had exclusive jurisdiction to issue and revoke letters of testamentary guardianship, and O.C.G.A. § 29-2-4(b) mandated the issuance of letters of testamentary guardianship to the brother of the children's father without notice and a hearing and without consideration of the children's best interests; equity afforded no valid basis for the superior court's exercise of jurisdiction because the aunt and uncle had an appropriate remedy in the probate court to challenge the testamentary guardianship: a petition for revocation or suspension of the brother's letters of testamentary guardianship. Zinkhan v. Bruce, 305 Ga. App. 510, 699 S.E.2d 833 (2010).
- If a next friend suing in behalf of a lunatic can maintain an action for waste committed by the guardian, or recover money in the guardian's hands, it can be done only in connection with a proceeding to remove the guardian and revoke guardianship letters. Bonner v. Evans, 89 Ga. 656, 15 S.E. 906 (1892) (decided under prior law).
- Because a lawyer failed to present any evidence of the value of the lawyer's services at a probate hearing, the trial court was left to determine that value based on its own experience; since the lawyer failed to prove that the contingency agreement with the beneficiaries of an estate provided for a reasonable fee, the trial court was authorized to determine that $15,000 was a reasonable fee. Rowen v. Estate of Hughley, 272 Ga. App. 55, 611 S.E.2d 735 (2005).
- In a wrongful death action, a decedent's minor children remained domiciled in Georgia because the guardian had not applied to a probate court to change the children's domicile to Alabama as required by O.C.G.A. § 29-2-22(b). D.R. v. Grant, 770 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (M.D. Ga. 2011).
- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, §§ 70 et seq., 86 et seq.
- 43 C.J.S., Infants, § 407 et seq. 57 C.J.S., Mental Health, §§ 176 et seq., 185 et seq.
- Amount of attorneys' compensation in matters involving guardianship and trusts, 57 A.L.R.3d 550.
Right of guardian or committee of incompetent to incur obligations so as to bind incompetent or his estate, or to make expenditures, without prior approval by court, 63 A.L.R.3d 780.
Total Results: 2
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2015-11-23
Citation: 298 Ga. 138, 780 S.E.2d 291
Snippet: guardian as provided in . . . [OCGA §] 29-2-22 . . . .”); OCGA § 29-2-22 (a) (1) (guardian has “the exclusive
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1999-01-19
Citation: 511 S.E.2d 188, 270 Ga. 516, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 734, 1999 Ga. LEXIS 50
Snippet: only for the limited proposition that *190 OCGA § 29-2-22(a) implicitly authorizes a guardian to pay for