O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 44-6-170 (2019)

Treatment of extraordinary cases; denial of sale or partition

✓ 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

In any extraordinary case not covered by Code Sections 44-6-160 through 44-6-169, the court may frame its proceeding and order so as to meet the exigency of the case without forcing the parties into equity; and the court may deny a sale or partition altogether if it is manifest that the interest of each party will not be fully protected.

History

(Orig. Code 1863, § 3906; Code 1868, § 3930; Code 1873, § 4006; Code 1882, § 4006; Civil Code 1895, § 4796; Civil Code 1910, § 5368; Code 1933, § 85-1514.)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS It is improper to force party into equity to obtain dissolution of copartnership in property before applying a writ of partition. Jackson v. Deese, 35 Ga. 84 (1866). That applicant holds deed as security only is patent reason for denying applicant’s petition, unless special reason can be shown for the applicant’s not using the applicant’s appropriate statutory remedy. Welch v. Agar, 84 Ga. 583, 11 S.E. 149, 20 Am. St. R. 380 (1890). Cashier’s check partitionable. - Novelty of the procedure in partitioning a cashier’s check payable to the plaintiff and the defendant jointly, and the probable existence of other remedies to determine the title or rights of the parties in the fund, would not defeat the remedy sought, which is given by this statute and others. English v. Poole, 31 Ga. App. 581, 121 S.E. 589 (1924) (see O.C.G.A. § 44-6-170).

Changes occurring after sale cannot mandate partition in kind. - Changes in conditions occurring after an order of sale which facilitate partition by metes and bounds do not mandate such a division. McClain v. McClain, 241 Ga. 162, 243 S.E.2d 879 (1978). Authority to hire timber cruise. - In a statutory partitioning of land, the trial court did not err in granting the partitioners authority to hire a timber cruise to assess the value of timber. Hart v. Hart, 245 Ga. App. 734, 538 S.E.2d 814 (2000). Cited in Tucker v. Parks, 70 Ga. 414 (1883); Brown v. Mooney, 108 Ga. 331, 33 S.E. 942 (1899); Smith v. Smith, 133 Ga. 170, 65 S.E. 414 (1909); Leggitt v. Allen, 85 Ga. App. 280, 69 S.E.2d 106 (1952); White v. Howell, 117 Ga. App. 778, 161 S.E.2d 892 (1968); Sanders v. Darnell, 238 Ga. 362, 233 S.E.2d 180 (1977).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 59A Am. Jur. 2d, Partition, §§ 64, 65. C.J.S. - 68 C.J.S., Partition, § 24. ALR. - Right of judgment creditor of cotenant to maintain partition, 25 ALR 105. Probate of will as condition precedent to suit for partition by devises, 141 ALR 1311.

Power of guardian to agree to, or of court to approve, voluntary partition between infant or incompetent and cotenant, 157 ALR 755.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case: Pack v. Mahan, 755 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pack v. Mahan, 755 S.E.2d 126 (Ga. 2014). · cites it 6× “” OCGA § 44-6-170. See also Jacobs, 291 Ga.”

Tyrones v. Tyrones, 792 S.E.2d 398 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 44-6-170. As the parties recognize, however, this Court has long held: Inadequacy of price paid upon the sale of property under power will not of itself and standing alone be sufficient reason for setting aside the sale.”

Hart v. Hart, 538 S.E.2d 814 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “5 Moreover, OCGA § 44-6-170 expressly contemplates unusual cases.”

Jacobs v. Young, 732 S.E.2d 69 (Ga. 2012). · cites it 2× “The trial court did so pursuant to its authority under OCGA § 44-6-170, which authorizes a trial court in an extraordinary case not covered by Code sections 44-6-160-44-6-169 to frame its proceeding and order so as to meet the exigency of the case without forcing the parties…”

Jeffrey S. Saik v. Eric Brown (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 6× “) OCGA § 44-6-170. Correctly recognizing that the relief requested by the Saiks was cognizable as a claim for statutory partition despite the manner in which it was pled, the trial court 12 proceeded to analyze the Saiks’ claim.”

Thomas Clayton Brown III v. Koi Pond Crickets, LLC (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 44-6-170. Consequently, “proceedings for a statutory partition sometimes partake of the nature of proceedings in equity,” and this permits “certain equities between tenants in common to be taken into consideration in making a partition.”

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.