O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as ‘‘The Revised Georgia Trust Code of 2010.’’ (b) Except to the extent it would impair vested rights and except as otherwise provided by law, the provisions contained in this chapter shall apply to any trust regardless of the date such trust was created.
History
Code 1981, § 53-12-1, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2010, ‘‘This chapter’’ was substituted for ‘‘This Act’’ at the beginning of subsection (a). Law reviews. - For article, ‘‘ ‘Rarely Utilized’: The Georgia Business Trust
Code,’’ see 14 Ga. St. B.J. 12 (2008). For annual survey on wills, trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary administration, see 65 Mercer L. Rev. 295 (2013). For article, ‘‘Self-Settled Asset Protection Trusts in Georgia,’’ see 23 Ga. St. B. J. 17 (Feb. 2018).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Retroactive application prohibited. - Rights of the decedent’s surviving spouse were already vested when the Revised Georgia Trust Code of 2010 (Revised Code), O.C.G.A. § 53-12-1 et seq., was enacted because under the terms of the amended trust agreement, the surviving spouse’s rights to the trust assets took effect upon the decedent’s death before the Revised Code took effect. Accordingly, any new obligation imposed by the Revised
Code that would have impaired the surviving spouse’s right to possession could not be applied retroactively. Rose v. Waldrip, 316 Ga. App. 812, 730 S.E.2d 529 (2012), cert. denied, No. S12C1888, 2012 Ga. LEXIS 981 (Ga. 2012). Retroactive applicability of statute of limitations. - Revised Georgia Trust Code’s provisions apply to any trust irrespective of the date the trust was created, with two exceptions: to the extent it would
impair vested rights, and except as otherwise provided by law. There is no vested right in a statute of limitation, and to the extent that Mayfield v. Heiman, 317 Ga. App. 322, (2012), suggests that O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307(a) does not apply retroactively, that suggestion is non-binding dicta. Smith v. SunTrust Bank, 325 Ga. App. 531, 754 S.E.2d 117 (2014). Jury instruction on standard of care. - In a breach of trust action, the trial court did not apply an incorrect stan-
dard of care in that a co-trustee could only be held liable if the co-trustee failed to act in good faith because if there was any error, the error was created by the co-trustee since the co-trustee consented to the instructions given and failed to request a charge that clearly set forth what the co-trustee asserted to be the proper standard for acts performed with absolute discretion. Reliance Trust Co. v. Candler, 294 Ga. 15, 751 S.E.2d 47 (2013).
Notes of Decisions
McPherson v. McPherson, 705 S.E.2d 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “(a) Effective on July 1, 2010, after this case was docketed in this Court, the Revised Georgia Trust Code, OCGA § 53-12-1 et seq., applies “to any trust regardless of the date such trust was created,” with two exceptions: “to the extent it would impair vested rights,” and “as…”
Gibson v. Gibson, 801 S.E.2d 40 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 53-12-1 (b). The Georgia Constitution also forbids passage of retroactive laws that injure vested rights.”
Reliance Trust Co. v. Candler, 751 S.E.2d 47 (Ga. 2013).
· cites it 4× “After the date this ease was tried but before Reliance filed its motion for new trial, the Revised Georgia Trust Code of 2010, OCGA § 53-12-1 et seq., became effective.”
Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Haskins, 327 S.E.2d 192 (Ga. 1985).
· cites it 2× “This enumeration is based upon the principle that trusts are subjects of equity, OCGA § 53-12-1, and relief is generally, though not always, sought through courts of equity.”
Callaway v. Willard., 830 S.E.2d 464 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “33 OCGA § 53-12-1 (b) ; see Ga. Const. art. I, § 1, ¶ X (1983) ("No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or laws impairing the obligation of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed.”
Nalley v. Langdale, 734 S.E.2d 908 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 53-12-1 (b); see also McPherson v.”
Smith v. Suntrust Bank, 754 S.E.2d 117 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “While the Revised Georgia Trust Code became effective July 1,2010, its provisions apply to any trust irrespective of the date the trust was created, with two exceptions: “to the extent it would impair vested rights” and “except as otherwise provided by law.”
Rose v. Waldrip, 730 S.E.2d 529 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “OCGA § 53-12-1 (a) et seq. Nevertheless, the Restatement comments note that a settlor may choose “for practical reasons” to follow the formalities for transfer to perfect the rights as to third parties.”
Reliance Trust Co. v. Candler, 726 S.E.2d 636 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “2 Although the Revised Georgia Trust Code became effective July 1, 2010, after the trial in this case, it applies to any trust regardless of the date such trust was created, with two exceptions: “to the extent it would impair vested rights” and “except as otherwise provided hy…”
Eason v. Farmer, 409 S.E.2d 509 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 2× “Under the Georgia Trust Act, OCGA § 53-12-1 et seq., 2 an implied trust is either a resulting trust or a constructive trust.”
Speed v. Speed, 430 S.E.2d 348 (Ga. 1993).
· cites it 2× “In 1991, the General Assembly adopted the Georgia Trust Act (OCGA § 53-12-1 et seq.) (the “Act”). The wife does not dispute that the trust would be valid under the Act, see OCGA § 53-12-20, but argues that the Act does not apply to the trust because the trust was created before…”
Dodd v. Scott, 550 S.E.2d 444 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “VI, Par. Ill (2). Notably, all the cases cited in this opinion concerning implied trusts, which are equitable instruments, and concerning the evidence needed to show same, emanate from the Supreme Court of Georgia.”
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.