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

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-4 (2019)

Law governing the validity of the trust

✓ 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

(a) As to real property, the validity of a trust shall be determined by the law of the situs of the real property. (b) As to all other property, the validity of a trust shall be determined by: (1) The law of the jurisdiction designated in the trust instrument unless the effect of the designation is contrary to the public policy of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the matter at issue; or (2) In the absence of an effective designation in the trust instrument, the law of the jurisdiction having the most significant relationship to the matter at issue.

History

Code 1981, § 53-12-4, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Cited in Reeves v. Newman, 287 Ga. 317, 695 S.E.2d 626 (2010).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: In Re Longino, 636 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Longino, 636 S.E.2d 683 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “We find no error in the probate court’s ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the petition seeking an order from the court voiding the trust created by Mr. Longino’s brother for the benefit of the ward and seeking return of the assets in the trust to the ward.”
Reeves v. Newman, 695 S.E.2d 626 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 53-12-4. However, as this Court’s precedent makes clear, it is not the relief requested, or any classification or treatment of the case in the court below, but the issue presented on appeal that controls.”
Howell v. Bank of Am., N.A. ex rel. Inglis (In re Dorsey), 497 B.R. 374 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “, Ex. A., § XIV. Under Georgia law, the validity and meaning of trusts are determined according to the law of the jurisdiction specified in the trust, unless doing so acts against public policy.”
Warren v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys., 527 S.E.2d 563 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 2× “The trial court did not reach the equitable questions of whether an accounting should be had or an injunction issued, but determined only that the plaintiffs are legally unable to seek that relief. This Court is not called upon to review any equitable decision of the court…”
Hays v. Hamblen Fam. Irrevocable Trust (In re Hamblen), 360 B.R. 362 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2006). · cites it 4× “To support his claim that the defendant trusts operate as “ ‘Illinois’-style Property Holding Trusts” and not “ ‘Massachusetts’ style business trusts,” which, he argues, do not require representation in court by a licensed attorney, he points to four sections of the Georgia…”
Odum v. Henry, 334 S.E.2d 304 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 53-12-4; Munford v. Peeples, 152 Ga.”
Griffith v. Beavers, 384 S.E.2d 650 (Ga. 1989). · cites it 2× “(b) OCGA § 53-12-4 provides: In an executed trust for the benefit of a person capable of taking and managing property in his own right, the legal title is merged immediately into the equitable interest, and the perfect title vests in the beneficiary according to the terms and…”
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.