Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1863, § 1790, former Code 1873, § 1839, former Code 1882, § 1839, and former Code 1933, § 49-301, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Constitutionality.

- Davis v. Harper, 54 Ga. 180 (1875) (decided under former Code 1873, § 1839).

Ward seeking accounting must apply to probate court.

- Where duly qualified guardian had not filed for approval any annual returns, ward should have applied to ordinary (now judge of probate court), instead of superior court, for accounting which ward was seeking. Moon v. Moon, 215 Ga. 110, 109 S.E.2d 39 (1959) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

Of age ward can cite former guardian for settlement.

- Upon arriving at age, ward can cite former guardian, to appear before ordinary (now judge of probate court) for settlement of the guardian's accounts, whether the guardian was, in fact, guardian at the time of such citation and hearing or not. Hood v. Perry, 73 Ga. 319 (1884) (decided under former Code 1882, § 1839).

Relationship of guardian and ward does not terminate for settlement purposes when ward reaches majority. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

When ward reaches majority, relationship of guardian and ward continues only for purposes of settlement. Donehoo v. Commercial Bank & Trust Co., 124 Ga. App. 588, 184 S.E.2d 690 (1971) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

Ward is not barred by statute of limitations in seeking accounting and settlement with guardian. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

Approval not conclusive when given when ward was minor.

- Approval of returns by probate court when ward was an infant is not conclusive against ward. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

Application to executor of deceased guardian.

- See Cunningham v. Schley, 34 Ga. 395 (1866) (decided under former Code 1863, § 1790).

Citation for settlement of non-resident guardian.

- A guardian who has obtained letters of guardianship in one county but lives in another county becomes a quasi officer of the appointing court and may be cited by ordinary (now judge of probate court) of that county. Usry v. Usry, 82 Ga. 198, 8 S.E. 60 (1888) (decided under former Code 1882, § 1839).

Citation of non-resident guardian when not subject to court's jurisdiction.

- An ordinary (now judge of probate court) does not have jurisdiction to cite for settlement a guardian who was not appointed by the judge and who had never, in any way, been subject to jurisdiction of such judge and acknowledgment of service of citation was no waiver of jurisdiction where guardian did not appear or plead to the citation. Jackson v. Hitchcock, 48 Ga. 491 (1873) (decided under former Code 1873, § 1839).

Pleading which attacks approved returns of guardian must be specific. Pettigrew v. Williams, 65 Ga. App. 576, 16 S.E.2d 120 (1941) (decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

Petitions in substantial compliance with law.

- See Weldon v. Patrick, 69 Ga. 724 (1882) (decided under former Code 1882, § 1839); De Loach v. Waters, 54 Ga. App. 386, 188 S.E. 58 (1936);(decided under former Code 1933, § 49-301).

Action for breach of fiduciary duty was litigated by consent in an accounting proceeding.

- Although the record showed that a conservator did not bring a claim pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 29-5-93(a)(4) in writing, but sought only an accounting pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 29-5-81, the conservator did not object when the administrator raised the issue at the hearing. As a result, the issue of whether the conservator breached the conservator's fiduciary duty was litigated by the implied consent of the parties pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-15(b). In re Hudson, 300 Ga. App. 340, 685 S.E.2d 323 (2009).

Conflict of interest when the same person is conservator and executrix.

- O.C.G.A. § 29-5-81(b) resolved any potential conflict of interest when the ward's child served both as conservator and as executrix of the parent's will by requiring the appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the deceased adult ward and to protect the ward's property rights. The guardian ad litem was served personally and reviewed and approved the conservator's final report. Ray v. Stewart, 287 Ga. 789, 700 S.E.2d 367 (2010).

Notice by publication.

- Constructive notice by publication of a conservator's petition for final settlement and discharge from the conservatorship under O.C.G.A. §§ 29-5-80(a) and29-5-81(b) did not violate the due process rights of a child of the ward who stood to benefit from the ward's will; the child did not have a legally protected interest in the discharge proceedings. Ray v. Stewart, 287 Ga. 789, 700 S.E.2d 367 (2010).

Liability for punitive damages.

- Conservator's bond pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 29-5-40 et seq. does not cover punitive damages. In re Estate of Gladstone, 303 Ga. 547, 814 S.E.2d 1 (2018).

Judgment that a conservator's bond covered punitive damages even though such damages were not expressly provided for under O.C.G.A. § 29-5-40 et seq. or under the provisions of the bond itself was reversed because a conservator's bond pursuant to § 29-5-40 et seq. does not cover punitive damages. In re Estate of Gladstone, 303 Ga. 547, 814 S.E.2d 1 (2018).

Cited in Johnston v. James, 48 Ga. 554 (1873); Jennings v. Longino, 49 Ga. App. 494, 176 S.E. 94 (1934); Head v. Head, 234 Ga. App. 469, 507 S.E.2d 214 (1998).

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 39 Am. Jur. 2d, Guardian and Ward, § 164 et seq.

C.J.S.

- 39 C.J.S., Guardian and Ward, § 210 et seq.

ALR.

- Right of appeal from order on application for removal of personal representative, guardian, or trustee, 37 A.L.R.2d 751.