O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-7 (2019)

When trust and chapter conflict

✓ 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) The effect of the provisions of this chapter may be varied by the trust instrument except:

(1) As to any requirements relating to the creation and validity of express trusts as provided in Article 2 of this chapter;

(2) As to the effect of the rules relating to spendthrift trusts as provided in Article 5 of this chapter;

(3) As to the power of the beneficiaries to modify a trustee’s compensation as provided in Code Section 53-12-210;

(4) As to the duty of a trustee to administer the trust and to exercise discretionary powers in good faith as provided in Code Sections 53-12-240 and 53-12-260;

(5) As to the effect of a provision relieving a trustee from liability as provided in Code Section 53-12-303;

(6) As to the periods of limitation on actions as provided in Code Sections 53-12-45 and 53-12-307; and

(7) As to the effect of the rules relating to trust directors as provided in Article 18 of this chapter.

(b) Nothing in a trust instrument shall prohibit or limit a court from taking any actions authorized by the provisions of this chapter.

History

Code 1981, § 53-12-7, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131; Ga. L. 2011, p. 551, § 7/SB 134; Ga. L. 2020, p. 377, § 1-71/HB 865. The 2020 amendment, effective Janu-

ary 1, 2021, in subsection (a), deleted ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (a)(5), added ‘‘; and’’ at the end of paragraph (a)(6), and added paragraph (a)(7).

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Trust instrument controlled. - In an appeal of an order granting a trustees’ motion for summary judgment on a claim for breach of trust and breach of fiduciary duty, the court of appeals proceeded under the Revised Georgia Trust Code, O.C.G.A. § 53-12-1 et seq., as supplemented by the common law because even assuming that past distributions under the trust

amounted to vested rights, the plaintiff could not show that the Revised Trust Code created any new trustees’ obligations or impaired those rights in any relevant way; although the Revised Trust Code did not require a trustee to consider the resources of any beneficiary when determining whether to distribute trust property, O.C.G.A. § 53-12-245, the trust

instrument affirmatively directed the trustees to do so. McPherson v. McPherson, 307 Ga. App. 548, 705 S.E.2d 314 (2011). Trustee’s/executor’s powers did not entitle trustee to ignore purpose of trust or commit waste. - Trial court erred in concluding that a widow’s considerable powers of control over two testamentary trusts as trustee and executor entitled her to summary judgment on two of the children’s/beneficiaries’ claims against the trust created for the purpose of supporting them during their lifetimes; she was required to diligently and in good faith ascertain whether they required support, and her powers over the assets

did not entitle her to commit waste. Peterson v. Peterson, 303 Ga. 211, 811 S.E.2d 309 (2018). Jury question as to whether duty of good faith breached. - Jury question was presented as to whether two trustees of their children’s trusts acted against the interests of the beneficiaries (their children) in bad faith by amending a partnership agreement to concentrate all voting power in themselves to the exclusion of the beneficiaries, who otherwise would have become partners when they turned 45. Likewise, the trustees as partners owed duties to the trusts as partners in the partnership. Rollins v. Rollins, 338 Ga. App. 308, 790 S.E.2d 157 (2016).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: McPherson v. McPherson, 705 S.E.2d 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011).
McPherson v. McPherson, 705 S.E.2d 314 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 53-12-7 (specifying those provisions, not including OCGA § 53-12-245, which a trust instrument may not vary).”
Fortner v. Town of Register, 604 S.E.2d 175 (Ga. 2004). · cites it 4× “" In outlawing any vegetation on private property that does not have the official stamp of governmental approval, the majority improperly overturns years of consistent interpretation of this statute by the Court of Appeals. Again, the majority's frolic into legislative arena…”
Peterson v. Peterson, 811 S.E.2d 309 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “2d 157 (2016) (saying that "our law is clear that a trustee has a duty to exercise discretionary powers in good faith" (citing to OCGA §§ 53-12-7 (a) (4) ; 53-12-260) ); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 86, comment (b) (2007) ("All powers of trusteeship are held in the trustee's…”
Peterson v. Peterson, 303 Ga. 211 (Ga. 2018). · cites it 2× “308, 313 ( 790 SE2d 157 ) (2016) (saying that “our law is clear that a trustee has a duty to exercise discretionary powers in good faith” (citing to OCGA §§ 53-12-7 (a) (4); 53-12-260)); Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 86, comment (b) (2007) (“All powers of trusteeship are held…”
Rollins Et Al. v. Rollins Et Al., 790 S.E.2d 157 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “OCGA §§ 53-12-7 (a) (4); 53-12-260. Further, “[n]o provision in a trust instrument shall be effective to relieve the trustee of liability for a breach of trust committed in bad faith or with reckless indifference to the interests of the beneficiaries.”
Aycock v. Aycock, 303 S.E.2d 456 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 53-12-7 (Code Ann. § 108-423). The jury expressed an intent that the property continue to produce monthly rental income for *108 payment of monthly child support, and the verdict contains no requirement that the trust be obligated to pay expenses or pre-existing debts.”
Nickolas Lamar Ewing v. Anne Mckenzie Scott, as Tr. of the Lamar Ewing Trust (Ga. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “”) (citation omitted; emphasis supplied); see also OCGA § 53-12-7 (a). i. Grandchildren. Under Article 7.”
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.