O.C.G.A.
O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-232 (2019)

Equitable accounting

✓ 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

Nothing in this article shall restrict the right of any party to seek an equitable accounting.

History

Code 1981, § 53-12-232, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Myers v. Myers, 297 Ga. 490, 775 S.E.2d 145 (2015).

ARTICLE 13 TRUSTEES’ DUTIES AND POWERS RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 76 Am. Jur. 2d, Trusts, § 331 et seq.

PART 1 DUTIES OF TRUSTEE

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1996–2018 · leading case: Reynolds v. Harrison, 604 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reynolds v. Harrison, 604 S.E.2d 184 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 8× “2 The will gives the executor the powers enumerated in OCGA § 53-12-232, and provides that the executor is to “select the assets to be used to satisfy’ the bequests to the marital trusts.”
Ivey v. Ivey, 465 S.E.2d 434 (Ga. 1996). · cites it 6× “Under the undisputed evidence, however, Trustee’s execution of the security deed cannot be upheld as his exercise of a power authorized pursuant to OCGA § 53-12-232 (8) (D), (11) (B) or (12).”
Myers v. Myers, 775 S.E.2d 145 (Ga. 2015). · cites it 6× “(a) Appellant argues that his continued operation of Buckshot was consistent with Decedent’s intentions because, although the will does not mention Buckshot, it gives the executor all of the powers set out in former OCGA § 53-12-232, which included the power “to continue or…”
Ray v. Nat'l Health Investors, Inc., 633 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Relying upon OCGA § 53-12-232, Ray asserts that the will granted him expanded powers.”
Bloodworth v. Bloodworth, 579 S.E.2d 858 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “Relying upon OCGA § 53-12-232, Henry and Eva Roy assert that the will granted expanded powers to them under that Code section.”
Regal Nissan, Inc. v. Scott, 821 S.E.2d 561 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “5 The term "personal representative" in this context "means any administrator, administrator with the will annexed, county administrator, or executor.”
Acebal v. United States, 60 Fed. Cl. 551 (Fed. Cl. 2004). “The letters incorporate all the powers contained in Ga Code Ann. § 53-12-232, which are extensive.”
Martin v. Martin, 685 S.E.2d 288 (Ga. 2009). · cites it 8× “any trust as may be required to secure the loan or loans”).”
Myers v. Myers (Ga. 2015). · cites it 6× “5 consistent with Decedent’s intentions because, although the will does not mention Buckshot, it gives the executor all of the powers set out in former OCGA § 53-12-232, which included the power “to continue or participate in the operation of any business or other enterprise,…”
In re Est. of Helms, 761 S.E.2d 579 (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “It is undisputed that the decedent’s will incorporated the provisions of former OCGA § 53-12-232. Thereunder, the Administrator is authorized “[t]o compromise, adjust, arbitrate, bring or defend actions on, abandon, or otherwise deal with and settle claims in favor of or against…”
In Re: Est. of Hazel Williams Helm (Ga. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “It is undisputed that the decedent’s will incorporated the provisions of former OCGA § 53-12-232. Thereunder, the Administrator is authorized “[t]o compromise, adjust, arbitrate, bring or defend actions on, abandon, or otherwise deal with and settle claims in favor of or against…”
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.