O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-204 (2019)

Cotrustees generally

✓ 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

The authority of cotrustees to act on behalf of the trust shall be as follows:

(1) A power vested in two or more trustees shall only be exercised by their unanimous action; provided, however, that a cotrustee may delegate to one or more other cotrustees the performance of ministerial acts;

(2) If a vacancy occurs in the office of a cotrustee, the remaining cotrustee or cotrustees may act unless or until the vacancy is filled; and

(3) While a cotrustee is unable to act because of inaccessibility, illness, or other temporary incapacity, the remaining cotrustee or cotrustees may act as if they were the only trustees when necessary to accomplish the purposes of the trust.

History

Code 1981, § 53-12-204, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-172 of the 1991 Trust Act are included in the annotations for this Code section. Paragraph (3) inapplicable to acts prior to effective date. - Trustee’s appointment of a successor trustee before the trustee’s death was not permitted under a trust instrument which provided for appointment of a successor for any deceased trustee by a majority of the surviving trustees, nor was paragraph (3) of former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-172 (see O.C.G.A. § 53-12-204) applicable, since it did not become effective until July 1, 1991, after the appointment of the successor and after the death of the appointing trustee, and the trustee was not authorized by the trust instrument to appoint the trustee’s successor. Ferst v. Ferst, 208 Ga. App. 846, 432 S.E.2d 227 (1993) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-172).

Absence of co-trustee’s signature. - Because nothing in the trust instrument authorized any actions contrary to former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-172 (see O.C.G.A. § 53-12-204), a co-trustee’s failure to sign a purchase and sales agreement involving trust property did not make the contract unenforceable, despite the co-trustee’s awareness of the sales negotiations, because the co-trustee: (1) did not have a duty to speak during the negotiations without any direct involvement therein; (2) had not been approached by anyone to sign the agreement; and (3) was entirely unaware that a signature was necessary to convey the trust property; thus, the co-trustee was not precluded from objecting to the sale of the trust property. Peach Consol. Props., LLC v. Carter, 278 Ga. App. 273, 628 S.E.2d 680 (2006) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-172).

PART 2 TRUSTEE COMPENSATION

Notes of Decisions
Mary Harman Beard, as of the Est. of James H. Beard, III v. Harriet H. Rondowsky, as Co-Tr. of the Charles C. Harman Trust (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 18× “Specifically, Rondowsky argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based solely on the plain language of OCGA § 53-12-204 when the court did not (1) perform “the necessary analysis of the entire factual circumstances presented by this case,” and (2) consider…”
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.