O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-110 (2019)

Short title

✓ 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

This article shall be known and may be cited as ‘‘The Georgia Transfers to Minors Act.’’

History

(Code 1981, § 44-5-110, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 667, § 1.)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For annual survey of wills, trusts, and administration of estates, see 42 Mercer L. Rev. 491 (1990). JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Baird v. Baird, 258 Ga. 186, 367 S.E.2d 37 (1988); Brandenburg v.

Brandenburg, 274 Ga. 183, 551 S.E.2d 721 (2001).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1988–2009 · leading case: Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 551 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brandenburg v. Brandenburg, 551 S.E.2d 721 (Ga. 2001). · cites it 2× “Although appellant argues that the contributions were intended to pay only for the children’s college educations, under the Act there can be no such limitation on their use and the funds may be used for any reason deemed necessary by the custodian for the support, maintenance,…”

Penny v. McBride, 639 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “The McBrides argue, however, that a 1990 change to the statute governing gift transfers to minors (see OCGA § 44-5-110 et seq.), which change for purposes of that statute defined “adults” as those 21 and older and “minors” as those under 21 (OCGA § 44-5-111 (1) and (11)), should…”

Backus v. Backus, 682 S.E.2d 138 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “1 OCGA § 44-5-110 et seq. 2 Gordon apparently transferred the balance of the account following a separate motion for contempt filed by Kay.”

Baird v. Baird, 367 S.E.2d 37 (Ga. 1988). · cites it 2× “The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the gifts of corporate shares were made pursuant to the Arizona Gifts to Minors Act, which is essentially the same as the Georgia Gifts to Minors Act, OCGA § 44-5-110 et seq. The probate court has jurisdiction to require an accounting…”

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.