O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 29-2-74 (2019)

‘‘Foreign guardian’’ defined; required filings; bond

✓ 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) For purposes of this part, the term ‘‘foreign guardian’’ means a guardian or other person who has been given responsibility by a court of competent jurisdiction in another state or territory governed by the Constitution of the United States for the care of a minor and whose guardianship has not been transferred to and accepted in this state pursuant to the provisions of Part 2 of this article.

(b) Any foreign guardian of a minor who resides in any other state and who is authorized to sell and convey property of the minor may sell property of the minor which is in this state, under the rules and regulations prescribed for the sale of real estate by conservators of this state, provided that the foreign guardian must file and have recorded in the court or other proper court, at the time of petitioning for sale, an authenticated copy of the letters of appointment as guardian of a minor and must also file with the court or other proper authority bond with good and sufficient security in double the value of the property to be sold for the faithful execution of the guardianship as provided by law.

History

(Code 1981, § 29-2-74, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1.)

Annotations

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, § 217 et seq. Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. - 13 Am. Jur. Pleading and Prac-

tice Forms, Guardian and Ward, § 474 et seq. C.J.S. - 39 C.J.S., Guardian and Ward, § 274 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–1998 · leading case: Utica Mut. Ins. v. Mitchell, 490 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997).
Utica Mut. Ins. v. Mitchell, 490 S.E.2d 489 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “A particular form of due process being provided for in the probate code for mere settlement of accounts, and no special notice process being required in the probate code for dismission of the guardian altogether, the general civil practice requirements apply.”
Head v. Head, 507 S.E.2d 214 (Ga. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “The settlement agreement, approved by the consent judgments of the superior court and probate court, cut off the statutory remedy of reopening the final settlement within five years and requiring an accounting for unreturned assets or choses in action and terminated the…”
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.