O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-5-47 (2019)

Liability of purchaser for costs of conveyance

✓ 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

Without an expressed stipulation to the contrary, a purchaser must pay the costs of the conveyance. (Civil Code 1895, § 3528; Civil Code 1910, § 4108; Code 1933, § 29-115.)

History of Code section. - This Code section is derived from the decision in

French, Richards & Co. v. Robinson, 78 Ga. 701, 3 S.E. 902 (1887).

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Express stipulation as to closing costs not found. - Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the closing attorney on the alleged client’s fraud claim as genuine issues of material fact existed about whether the closing attorney made misrepresentations to the alleged client regarding the sale of timber from the estate of the alleged client’s father; one example involved the closing attorney’s successful effort to get the

alleged client to pay the closing costs associated with the conveyance of timber, even though statutory law directed that the purchaser was to pay such costs absent an express stipulation to the contrary and no such express stipulation existed. Mays v. Askin, 262 Ga. App. 417, 585 S.E.2d 735 (2003). Cited in Lively v. Munday, 201 Ga. 409, 40 S.E.2d 62 (1946).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 2003–2003 · leading case: Mays v. Askin, 585 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Mays v. Askin, 585 S.E.2d 735 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 44-5-47. But here, apparently an express stipulation requiring Mays to pay the costs of the conveyance did not exist.”

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.