Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 29-3-23 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 29-3-23 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 29-3-23

TITLE 29 GUARDIAN AND WARD

Section 3. Conservators of Minors, 29-3-1 through 29-3-120.

ARTICLE 2 RIGHTS OF MINOR AND OBLIGATIONS OF CONSERVATOR

29-3-23. Rights of conservator to property; disclosure of conflicts of interest.

  1. The appointment of a conservator shall not automatically cause the conservator to forfeit any rights to property.
  2. The conservator must promptly disclose any conflict of interest between the conservator and the minor when it arises or becomes known to the conservator and seek the court's determination as to whether the conflict is insubstantial or whether it is in the best interest of the minor for the conservator to continue to serve and not forfeit any property right. If the court finds that the conflict of interest is substantial or contrary to the best interest of the minor, the conservator may either resign or forfeit the property interest that is the source of the conflict.
  3. A transaction affected by a substantial conflict between personal and fiduciary interests includes any sale, encumbrance, or other transaction involving the conservatorship estate entered into by the conservator or the spouse, descendant, agent, or lawyer of the conservator or a corporation or other enterprise in which the conservator has a significant beneficial interest.

(Code 1981, §29-3-23, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1.)

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Failure to explain reason for selection of county guardian.

- Probate court, when selecting a new guardian for appellant, erred in failing to consider appellant's next of kin; because the hearing was not recorded, and because the order failed to explain the reason the probate court selected the county guardian as the new guardian, the record supported appellant's argument that the probate court failed to consider the statutory preferences of former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2(c) in naming a new guardian. In re Phillips, No. A02A2368, Ga. App. , S.E.2d (Oct. 9, 2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-2).

Cited in Twitty v. Akers, 218 Ga. App. 467, 462 S.E.2d 418 (1995); Gary v. Weiner, 233 Ga. App. 284, 503 S.E.2d 898 (1998).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, §§ 99 et seq., 205 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 57 C.J.S., Mental Health, § 135 et seq.

No results found for Georgia Code 29-3-23.