O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 29-4-20 (2019)

Rights of the ward; impact on voting and testamentary capacity

✓ 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) In every guardianship, the ward has the right to: (1) A qualified guardian who acts in the best interest of the ward; (2) A guardian who is reasonably accessible to the ward; (3) Have the ward’s property utilized to provide adequately for the ward’s support, care, education, health, and welfare; (4) Communicate freely and privately with persons other than the guardian, except as otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (5) Individually, or through the ward’s representative or legal counsel, bring an action relating to the guardianship, including the right to file a petition alleging that the ward is being unjustly denied a right or privilege granted by this chapter and Chapter 5 of this title and including the right to bring an action to modify or terminate the guardianship pursuant to the provisions of Code Sections 29-4-41 and 29-4-42; (6) The least restrictive form of guardianship assistance, taking into consideration the ward’s functional limitations, personal needs, and preferences; and (7) Be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time. (b) The appointment of a guardian is not a determination regarding the right of the ward to vote. (c) The appointment of a guardian is not a determination that the ward lacks testamentary capacity.

History

(Code 1981, § 29-4-20, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey on wills, trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary

administration, see 67 Mercer L. Rev. 273 (2015).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Father had right to visitation with child over guardian’s objection. - Although a disabled adult child’s mother as guardian had authority to exercise the powers reasonably necessary to provide for the child’s health and welfare, O.C.G.A. § 29-4-23(a)(4), the child had

the right to communicate freely with persons other than the guardian, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 29-4-20(a)(4). In the absence of any medical or other direct testimony that visitation would have a negative impact on the child, the child’s father had the right to visitation with his daughter over

the mother’s objection. Mitchum v. Manning, 304 Ga. App. 842, 698 S.E.2d 360 (2010).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 2010–2020 · leading case: In re Est. of Wertzer, 765 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Est. of Wertzer, 765 S.E.2d 425 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “Adult wards also have certain statutory rights as are set forth in OCGA § 29-4-20. Those rights include the right to a guardian who acts in the ward’s best interest, OCGA § 29-4-20 (a) (1), and the right to “[c]ommunicate freely and privately with persons other than the…”
In Re Est. of Wertzer., 826 S.E.2d 168 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “to [assure] the ward's rights under OCGA § 29-4-20." In his prayer for relief, Saul asked the probate court, inter alia, to appoint a guardian ad litem, to allow him unsupervised visits with the ward, and to "[i]nstruct the Guardian on the Ward's rights under the law, especially…”
Milbourne v. Milbourne, 799 S.E.2d 785 (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “In any event, Georgia law specifically bars a guardian from disposing of a ward’s property without the involvement of a conservator.”
Mitchum v. Manning, 698 S.E.2d 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 29-4-23 (a) (4). It also dictates, however, that “[i]n every guardianship, the ward has the right to .”
In Re: Est. of Sierra Leigh Wertzer (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “Those rights include the right to a guardian who acts in the ward’s best interest, OCGA § 29-4-20 (a) (1), and the right to “[c]ommunicate freely and privately with persons other than the guardian, except as otherwise ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction[.”
Lamario Garrett v. Dep't of Human Servs. (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “”) (emphasis supplied); OCGA § 29-4-20 (a) (6) (“In every guardianship, the ward has the right to .”
Milbourne v. Milbourne (& Vice Versa) (Ga. 2017). · cites it 2× “Indeed, Janay’s argument seems to hinge on the fact that Edison retained testamentary capacity; otherwise, any statement that he wished to revoke the January Will would be without legal effect.”
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.