O.C.G.A. § 29-5-4 (2019)
Affidavit on property or value of estate; payment, transfer, or delivery pursuant to affidavit
(a) Upon receiving an affidavit: (1) That the total personal property of an incapacitated adult does not exceed $2,500.00 in value; (2) That no conservator has been appointed for the incapacitated adult’s estate; and (3) That the affiant is the spouse or that there is no spouse and the affiant is a relative having the responsibility of the support of the incapacitated adult, any person or corporation indebted to or holding personal property of the incapacitated adult shall be authorized to pay the amount of the indebtedness or deliver the personal property to the affiant. In the same manner and upon like proof, any person or corporation having the responsibility for the issuance or transfer of stocks, bonds, or other personal property shall be authorized to issue or transfer the stocks, bonds, or personal property to or in the name of the affiant. Upon payment, delivery, transfer, or issuance pursuant to the affidavit, the person or corporation shall be released to the same extent as if the payment, delivery, transfer, or issuance had been made to the legally qualified conservator of the incapacitated adult and shall not be required to see to the application or disposition of the personal property. (b) The person making the affidavit and receiving the personal property shall be authorized to expend or otherwise dispose of the personal property for the benefit of the incapacitated adult in the person’s judgment as may be just and proper.
History
(Code 1981, § 29-5-4, enacted by Ga. L. 2004, p. 161, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 60, § 29/HB 95.)
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 prefer-
ences 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). Purported settlement agreement involving the ward not enforceable. - Trial court did not err in denying a driver’s motions to enforce a settlement with the driver’s injured passenger, and dismiss the passenger’s action, as: (1) the attorney, who purported to agree to the
settlement of the passenger’s claim, lacked the authority to do so; and (2) the undisputed evidence revealed that at the time of the purported settlement no guardian had been appointed for the passenger. Anaya v. Coello, 279 Ga. App. 578, 632 S.E.2d 425 (2006). 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, § 164 et seq.
C.J.S. - 57 C.J.S., Mental Health, § 135 et seq.
ARTICLE 2 PETITION FOR APPOINTED CONSERVATOR