O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-27 (2019)

Construction; parol evidence

✓ 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

When the construction of an express trust is at issue, the court may hear parol evidence of the circumstances surrounding the settlor at the time of the execution of the trust and parol evidence to explain all ambiguities, both latent and patent.

History

Code 1981, § 53-12-27, 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. § 53-12-27 of the 1991 Trust Act are included in the annotations for this Code section. Meaning of ‘‘foundation.’’ - Word ‘‘foundation’’ as used in a trust was ambig-

uous as the settlor did not establish a foundation at the time of the settlor’s death and it could not be determined whether the settlor had a charitable intent; thus, the trial court should have considered parol evidence under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-27 (see O.C.G.A.

§ 53-12-27) to explain the ambiguity and to determine the settlor’s intent. Baker v. Merrill Lynch Trust Co., 286 Ga. App. 767, 650 S.E.2d 296 (2007), cert. denied, No.

S07C1772, 2007 Ga. LEXIS 810 (Ga. 2007) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-27).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case: Ovrevik v. Ovrevik, 564 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ovrevik v. Ovrevik, 564 S.E.2d 8 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 53-12-27. Id. at 99-100. The trial court explicitly considered the alternatives stated by this court pursuant to OCGA § 9-11-60 (h), and it concluded that the settlors intended the phrase at issue to mean “that Russell *758 Ovrevik had the discretion to decide both the…”

Baker v. Merrill Lynch Trust Co., FSB, 650 S.E.2d 296 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “13 OCGA § 53-12-27. 14 See Trammell, supra at 845 .”

Ovrevik v. Ovrevik, 527 S.E.2d 586 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 53-12-27. Decided January 5, 2000 — Reconsiderations denied January 28,2000.”

Nickolas Lamar Ewing v. Anne Mckenzie Scott, as Tr. of the Lamar Ewing Trust (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “Because the removal of the trustee requires the unanimous consent of all the income beneficiaries, the trial court’s ruling as to who qualified as one was critical.”

Marcia Anita Johnson v. Jimmy W. Johnson (Ga. Ct. App. 2026). “at 771 (citations and punctuation omitted);2 see also OCGA § 53-12-27 (permitting parol evidence to explain ambiguities).”

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.