Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 53-4-21 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 53-4-21 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 53-4-21

TITLE 53 WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES

Section 4. Wills, 53-4-1 through 53-4-75.

ARTICLE 3 EXECUTION AND ATTESTATION

53-4-21. Knowledge of contents of will by testator.

Knowledge of the contents of a will by the testator is necessary to the validity of a will. If the testator can read, the testator's signature or acknowledgment of that signature is presumed to show such knowledge.

(Code 1981, §53-4-21, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.)

COMMENT

This section carries forward the first two sentences of OCGA Sec. 53-2-42. Former OCGA Sec. 53-2-42 also stated that greater proof will be necessary to show that the testator knew the will's contents if the scrivener or the scrivener's immediate family receive substantial amounts under the will. The reference is repealed as unnecessary in that suspicious circumstances such as those described will result in closer scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the will execution under the theories of duress and undue influence. Likewise, former OCGA Sec. 53-2-46, dealing with the competency required of an interpreter who is used to convey the wishes of the testator to the scrivener or the witnesses, is repealed as unnecessary.

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Presumption testator knew contents of will.

- Trial court did not err in granting a propounder's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether a testator's will was properly executed because pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 53-4-21, the testator's signature on the will gave rise to a presumption that she knew the contents of the will; the mere fact that only portions of the will were read aloud to the testator was of no consequence. Strong v. Holden, 287 Ga. 482, 697 S.E.2d 189 (2010).

Because a parent's will was plain and unambiguous and did not contain a residue clause, the lapsed gift of the residue passed to the parent's three daughters by intestacy according to O.C.G.A. § 53-4- 65(b); although the parent expressed disappointment with two daughters and left them specific bequests of $10.00 each, the parent did not express an intent to disinherit the daughters. Banner v. Vandeford, 293 Ga. 654, 748 S.E.2d 927 (2013).

Cited in Cames v. Joiner (In re Joiner), 319 Bankr. 903 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 2004).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 53-4-21

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Holland v. Holland, 596 S.E.2d 123 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 25 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Apr 27, 2004 | 277 Ga. 792, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1529

...ng the will. 4. Although appellees frame one argument in terms of mistake of fact, what they actually argue is that because Edd was illiterate, he could not have understood the provisions of the will and was, therefore, unaware of its contents. OCGA § 53-4-21 requires such an awareness: "Knowledge of the contents of a will by the testator is necessary to the validity of the will." The only evidence regarding Edd's knowledge of the content of his will was the testimony of the attorney who drafted the will....
Copy

Strong v. Holden, 697 S.E.2d 189 (Ga. 2010).

Cited 5 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jul 5, 2010 | 287 Ga. 482, 2010 Fulton County D. Rep. 2183

...eeded physical assistance to mark the instrument. (b) The mere fact that only portions of the will were read aloud to Reeves is of no consequence. Reeves' signature on the will gives rise to a presumption that she knew the contents of the will. OCGA § 53-4-21....
Copy

Banner v. Vandeford, 293 Ga. 654 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 1 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Sep 23, 2013 | 748 S.E.2d 927, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 2937

...sson demonstrated his faith in her by naming her as executrix and entrusting her with power to administer the estate. We cannot accept this assertion because the will does not express the testator’s desire to disinherit Vandeford and Nee. See OCGA § 53-4-21 (if testator can read, his signature is presumed to show knowledge of contents of the will)....