O.C.G.A. § 29-4-40 (2019)
Inquiry into unjust denial of rights or privileges of ward
(a) Upon the petition of any interested person, including the ward, or upon the court’s own motion, the court may conduct a judicial inquiry into whether the ward is being denied a right or privilege provided for by this chapter and may issue appropriate orders. Except for good cause shown, the court shall order that notice of the inquiry be given, in whatever form the court deems appropriate, to the ward, the guardian, the ward’s legal counsel, if any, and the ward’s conservator, if any. The court, in its discretion, may appoint legal counsel for the ward or a guardian ad litem, or both.
(b) No petition alleging that the ward is being unjustly denied a right or privilege provided for by this chapter shall be allowed by the court within two years after the denial or dismissal on the merits of a petition alleging that the ward is being unjustly denied substantially the same right or privilege unless the petitioner shows a significant change in the condition or circumstances of the ward.
History
(Code 1981, § 29-4-40, 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 Code 1933, § 49-113, and former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-7 are in-
cluded in the annotations for this Code section. Commingling of funds and failure to account is breach. - Deposit of
ward’s funds to individual account of guardian, and failure to account therefor, is per se a breach of bond. Hawes v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 54 Ga. App. 776, 189 S.E. 59 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-113). Void sale does not amount to breach. - Where sale of realty conducted by guardian is illegal and void, title to property sold does not pass, and heirs and distributees may assert their title to property so sold, so that there is no such loss to them as would amount to breach of bond of administrator and render surety thereon liable. Hawes v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 54 Ga. App. 776, 189 S.E. 59 (1936) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-113). Ward’s right to make will. - The appointment of a guardian for adults who are incapacitated does not destroy the ward’s right or ability to make a will. Pope v. Fields, 273 Ga. 6, 536 S.E.2d 740 (2000) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-7). Probate court’s jurisdiction to approve the settlement of a malpractice claim and to protect the best interests of the incapacitated ward conferred upon
that court the authority to require that the ward’s attorneys pay into the registry of court such settlement funds as the attorneys disbursed to themselves, and to hold them in contempt for their refusal to do so. Gnann v. Woodall, 270 Ga. 516, 511 S.E.2d 188 (1999) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 29-5-7). Ward’s right to visitation with father. - Probate court had the authority to establish a set visitation schedule between an adult mentally disabled ward and the ward’s father in order to protect the ward’s rights and best interests under the broad powers granted in O.C.G.A. §§ 15-9-30(a), 29-4-40, and 29-4-41, despite the mother’s/guardian’s objection to the visitation. In re Estate of Wertzer, 330 Ga. App. 294, 765 S.E.2d 425 (2014). Cited in Speck v. Speck, 42 Ga. App. 517, 156 S.E. 706 (1931); Kinsey v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., 53 Ga. App. 674, 187 S.E. 246 (1936); Tucker v. American Sur. Co., 191 F.2d 959 (5th Cir. 1951); Fuller v. Weekes, 105 Ga. App. 790, 125 S.E.2d 662 (1962); Levenson v. Oliver, 202 Ga. App. 157, 413 S.E.2d 501 (1991); Heichelbech v. Evans, 798 F. Supp. 708 (M.D. Ga. 1992).
RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, § 185 et seq. C.J.S. - 39 C.J.S., Guardian and Ward, §§ 80 et seq., 255 et seq. ALR. - Leave of court as prerequisite to action on statutory bond, 2 A.L.R. 563.
Official bond of executor, administrator, guardian, or trustee as covering appeal taken by him, 132 A.L.R. 1280.