O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 29-2-44 (2019)

Statute of limitations

✓ 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

All actions against a guardian, except on the guardian’s bond, shall be brought within six years of the termination of the guardianship of the minor, except as provided in Code Section 9-3-90.

History

(Code 1981, § 29-2-44, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘Some Problems in Providing for Nonjudicial Settlement of the Trustee’s Accounts,’’ see 3 Ga. St. B.J. 417 (1967). For article, ‘‘Fiduciary Problems of the Executor and

Trustee: Conflicts of Interest, Violations of Fiduciary Duties, Surcharge, and Other Remedies of Beneficiaries,’’ see 9 Ga. St. B.J. 187 (1972).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1910, § 3994, former Code 1933, § 113-1411 and Ga. L. 1943, p. 409, § 1 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Annual returns which do not substantially comply with the law are not prima facie proof in favor of the administrator. If they are allowed by the ordinary (now probate judge) and recorded, under the terms of the statute, anyone challenging their correctness must carry the burden of proving their incorrectness. But when the returns are not allowed by the ordinary (now probate judge), the burden is upon the administrator to prove the returns’ correctness in a proceeding in the court of ordinary (now probate court) for an accounting and settlement. Ellis v. McWilliams, 70 Ga. App. 195, 27 S.E.2d 886 (1943) (decided under Ga. L. 1943, p. 409, § 1).

Mere failure to attach vouchers to returns, standing alone, would not constitute a fraud upon the court of ordinary (now probate court). The total failure to file any returns at all would not, within itself, constitute fraud, nor afford a good reason for the interference of equity. While under the law it is the duty of an administrator to file annual returns accompanied by original vouchers, the duty is placed upon the ordinary (now probate court) to examine the returns to determine their correctness and interested parties are given 30 days in which to file objections to the returns. Hoffman v. Chester, 240 Ga. 296, 49 S.E.2d 760 (1948) (decided under former Code 1933, § 113-1411). Cited in Peavey v. Clemons, 10 Ga. App. 507, 73 S.E. 756 (1912); McMullen v. Carlton, 192 Ga. 282, 14 S.E.2d 719 (1941).

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under former O.C.G.A. § 53-7-180 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Filing originals or copies of vouchers. - Banks, acting as guardians and administrators of estates, need not file

originals or copies of vouchers with their returns if the banks file an affidavit stating that the original vouchers have been compared to each item on the return and that the return is correct. 1983 Op. Att’y Gen. No. U83-34 (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-7-180).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Executors and Administrators, §§ 516, 517, 960, 961, 966 et seq., 973.

C.J.S. - 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, § 890 et seq.

ARTICLE 5 TEMPORARY SUBSTITUTE GUARDIANS

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1998–2005 · leading case: Head v. Head, 507 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Head v. Head, 507 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “OCGA § 29-2-44 provides for annual reporting of the assets, income, and expenses for the estate for the preceding year or the appropriate period to show “with a note or memorandum of any other fact necessary to the exhibition of the true condition of the estate.”

In Re Est. of Robertson, 611 S.E.2d 680 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “33 (b) Cross next argues that the probate court improperly ordered him to turn over funds pursuant to OCGA §§ 29-2-44, 29-2-45, and 29-2-76. Again, we disagree.”

Howard v. Est. of Howard, 548 S.E.2d 48 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “3 OCGA § 29-2-44 (c) provides, in pertinent part, that once the probate judge orders the return to be recorded, “[t]he return thus allowed and recorded shall be prima-facie evidence in favor of the guardian of its correctness.”

Gary v. Weiner, 503 S.E.2d 898 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “On June 19, 1997, the probate court, pursuant to OCGA § 29-2-45, issued a citation for Joan Gary to show cause why she should not be removed as guardian for failure to make acceptable returns as required by OCGA § 29-2-44. Apparently, Joan Gary had filed no annual returns since…”

Hayes v. Clark, 530 S.E.2d 38 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “8 See OCGA § 29-2-44. 9 65 Ga. App. at 585 (3).”

In Re Woodall, 499 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “The guardian is required to make certain returns to the probate court pursuant to OCGA § 29-2-44, and it is through this process that the probate court oversees disbursements which was not amended by the 1995 amendment.”

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.