O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-2-42 (2019)

Right of action by creditor

✓ 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

After the granting of an order by the probate court that no administration is necessary, any creditor of the decedent shall have a right of action on the unsatisfied debts against the heirs, to the extent of the value of property received by the heirs.

History

Code 1981, § 53-2-42, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.

Annotations

COMMENT This section carries over former OCGA 53-10-4 with modifications to reflect the changes made in the previous Code sections. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under Ga. L. 1958, p. 355, § 7 are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Cited in Hayes v. Strickland, 112 Ga. App. 567, 145 S.E.2d 728 (1965).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 23 Am. Jur. 2d, Descent and Distribution, §§ 133, 134, 136, 138, 143 et seq. C.J.S. - 26B C.J.S., Descent and Distribution, §§ 71, 112 et seq.

ALR. - Jurisdiction and power of equity to subject legacy, devise, or distributive share in estate to claim of creditor of legatee, devisee, or distributee, 123 A.L.R. 1293.

ARTICLE 5 ESCHEAT Law reviews. - For comment, ‘‘Unwrapping Escheat: Unclaimed Property

Laws and Gift Cards,’’ see 60 Emory L.J. 971 (2011).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1991–1993 · leading case: Hart v. Fortson, 435 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hart v. Fortson, 435 S.E.2d 45 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 53-2-42. If the testator can read and write, his or her signature (or acknowledgment thereof) raises a presumption that he or she knew the contents of the will.”

Lowe v. Young, 400 S.E.2d 619 (Ga. 1991). · cites it 6× “(b) OCGA § 53-2-42 provides: Knowledge of the contents by the testator is necessary to the validity of a will.”

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.