O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-2-6 (2019)

Individual related to decedent through two or more lines of relationship

✓ 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

An individual who is related to the decedent through two or more lines of relationship is entitled to only a single share based on the relationship entitling that individual to the largest share under the laws of intestacy.

History

Code 1981, § 53-2-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.

Annotations

COMMENT This section is modeled after Uniform Probate Code Sec. 2-113. This section had no counterpart in former OCGA Title 53.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1983–1999 · leading case: Skelton v. Skelton, 308 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1983).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Skelton v. Skelton, 308 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 2× “” 5 OCGA § 53-2-6 (Code Ann. § 113-208) provides “A will must be freely and voluntarily executed; anything which destroys the testator’s freedom of volition, such as fraudulent practices upon the testator’s fears, affections, or sympathies; duress; or any undue influence whereby…”

Est. of Hubert v. Comm'r, 101 T.C. 314 (Tax Ct. 1993). “Hubert was to receive), is invalid, as having been *103 procured by undue influence.”

In Re Est. of Diaz, 524 S.E.2d 219 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “Appellants argue that because O’Brien lived with Diaz from February 1997 until her death, precluded appellants from talking to or visiting with Diaz, and refused to provide them with information about Diaz’s physical health, there is sufficient evidence of undue influence. Undue…”

Green v. Jones, 326 S.E.2d 448 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 53-2-6. We do not agree that the facts in this case are similar to the facts in Skelton v.”

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.