Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Except as provided in Code Section 44-13-60, any officer knowingly levying on or selling property made exempt from sale shall be guilty of trespass; and any person allowed such exemption may recover for such trespass for their exclusive use.
(Ga. L. 1868, p. 27, § 10; Code 1873, § 2027; Code 1882, § 2027; Civil Code 1895, § 2849; Civil Code 1910, § 3399; Code 1933, § 51-901; Ga. L. 1983, p. 1170, § 2.)
- For note discussing legal and equitable relief from execution available to debtors, see 12 Ga. L. Rev. 814 (1978).
- Under O.C.G.A. § 44-13-63 trespass against an officer for wrongful levy on homestead property may be maintained by the wife or family of the debtor without making the debtor himself a party plaintiff. McWilliams v. Anderson, 68 Ga. 772 (1882).
- The right to use is not limited to the wife or family, but the husband as the head of the family can maintain the action, and will hold the recovery for their use. Personal Fin. Co. v. Evans, 45 Ga. App. 53, 163 S.E. 250 (1932).
- Where an officer makes an unauthorized and wrongful levy upon the property of another, the officer and any others who procure such a seizure are liable as joint trespassers, in which event the aggrieved party may bring suit against any one or all of such wrongdoers, according to the aggrieved party's election. Personal Fin. Co. v. Evans, 45 Ga. App. 53, 163 S.E. 250 (1932); Alexander v. Holmes, 85 Ga. App. 124, 68 S.E.2d 242 (1951).
- Any officer knowingly levying upon property which has been made exempt from the process by either the methods provided by law shall be guilty of a trespass, except that, in case of the constitutional homestead, a levy is permissible where the plaintiff, plaintiff's agent or attorney, makes and places in the hands of the officer the affidavit prescribed by law. Personal Fin. Co. v. Evans, 45 Ga. App. 53, 163 S.E. 250 (1932).
- The fact that one who does not own land has had it set apart as a homestead would give that person no right as against the real owner, nor would that person therefore be entitled to recover against another for entering and taking possession of the land. Scott v. Mathis, 72 Ga. 119 (1883).
- A petition under O.C.G.A. § 44-13-63 may constitute an adequate basis for the admission of evidence of the fact of a valid exemption if the allegations imply a valid homestead even though it may not appear which kind of homestead has been obtained. Personal Fin. Co. v. Evans, 45 Ga. App. 53, 163 S.E. 250 (1932).
- See Greaves v. Middlebrooks, 59 Ga. 240 (1877).
Cited in Gillespie v. Chastain, 57 Ga. 218 (1876); Crowley & Co. v. Freeman, 9 Ga. App. 1, 70 S.E. 349 (1911); White v. Roper, 176 Ga. 180, 167 S.E. 177 (1932).
- 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Exemptions, §§ 136, 142, 167.
- 40 C.J.S., Homesteads, §§ 134, 153.
- Availability of judgment under which exempt property has been seized as a set-off or counterclaim against claim based on wrongful seizure, 20 A.L.R. 276.
- Ga. L. 1983, p. 1170, which amended Code Sections 44-13-80 and 44-13-87 and reenacted Code Sections 44-13-81 through 44-13-86 without change, provided in § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, that: "It is the intent of this Act to implement certain changes required by Article I, Section I, Paragraph XXVI of the Constitution of the State of Georgia."
- Lien of judgment on excess value of homestead, 41 A.L.R.4th 292.
No results found for Georgia Code 44-13-63.