O.C.G.A.
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.
(a) When the spouse of an intestate decedent dies intestate and without ascertainable heirs within six months of the decedent’s death, any undistributed property of the decedent to which the spouse had been entitled prior to the spouse’s death shall not escheat but shall be distributed to the heirs of the decedent who would have inherited the property under the intestacy laws if the spouse had predeceased the decedent. (b) The nonexistence of heirs of the spouse may be determined by publication as provided in Code Section 53-2-51. If no heir of the spouse appears, the property, less the expenses of the proceedings to determine the nonexistence of heirs, shall be paid over as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section.
History
Code 1981, § 53-2-8, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.
Annotations
Code Commission notes. - Pursuant
to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1996, ‘‘Code Section’’ was substituted for ‘‘Code section’’ in the first sentence in subsection (b).
COMMENT This section is a modification of former OCGA Sec. 44-5-199. The purpose of this section is to provide an alternative intestacy rule to prevent the escheat of certain property of a decedent if the decedent’s spouse dies intestate within six months without ascertainable heirs. Under this section, any property of the first decedent to which the spouse is entitled but which has not yet been distributed to the spouse will instead be distributed to the heirs of the first decedent as if the spouse had predeceased the decedent. The law relating to escheat is codified at Code Sec.
ARTICLE 2 JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF HEIRS AND INTERESTS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases, 1983–2001 · leading case:
Skelton v. Skelton, 308 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1983).
Skelton v. Skelton, 308 S.E.2d 838 (Ga. 1983).
· cites it 2× “§ 113-210) provides “A will executed under a mistake of fact as to the existence or conduct of an heir at law of the testator is inoperative, insofar as the heir at law is concerned, and the testator shall be deemed to have died intestate as to him.” 5 OCGA § 53-2-6 (Code Ann.”
Dismuke v. C & S TRUST CO., 407 S.E.2d 739 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Having determined that appellant had not established the existence of a common-law marriage between her and the decedent, the trial court did not err in failing to apply OCGA § 53-2-8 inasmuch as appellant was not an heir at law of the decedent.”
Yancey v. Hall, 458 S.E.2d 121 (Ga. 1995).
· cites it 4× “The contention is that, based upon this evidence, a jury could find that Harris’ ex *470 pressed belief that his nephew was “a ne’er-do-well who drank a lot” was a “mistake of fact” as to the conduct of the nephew within the meaning of OCGA § 53-2-8. However, in order for…”
Kaplan v. Kaplan, 469 S.E.2d 198 (Ga. 1996).
· cites it 8× “Appellant, who married the decedent in 1978, filed a caveat on the ground of mistake of fact under OCGA § 53-2-8. The probate court granted the executors’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”
Harper v. Harper, 554 S.E.2d 454 (Ga. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Construing all of the evidence most strongly in favor of Caveator, Grandson provided essentially truthful information and Testator simply leapt to the erroneous conclusion that Caveator was the thief.”
Joseph v. Grisham, 482 S.E.2d 251 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 4× “Even assuming the testatrix’s concerns were not well-founded, they do not constitute the sort of mistake of fact on the basis of which a will can be invalidated under OCGA § 53-2-8. In order for the testatrix’s beliefs to constitute a *679 “mistake of fact” within the meaning of…”
Shore v. Malloy, 472 S.E.2d 303 (Ga. 1996).
· cites it 6× “In Georgia, OCGA § 53-2-8 provides an exception to the general rule that a mistake of fact does not invalidate a will or its provisions.”
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.