O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 29-3-23 (2019)

Rights of conservator to property; disclosure of conflicts of interest

✓ 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) The appointment of a conservator shall not automatically cause the conservator to forfeit any rights to property.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

History

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

Annotations

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, No. A02A2368, 2002 Ga. App. LEXIS 1311 (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.