O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-4-65 (2019)

Disposition of lapsed or void testamentary gift of residuum

✓ 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) A lapsed or void testamentary gift of realty or personalty shall become part of the residuum.

(b) A lapsed or void gift of the residuum shall be deemed a part of the share of the other residuary beneficiaries in proportion to their original shares of the residuum. If there are no other residuary beneficiaries, a lapsed or void gift of the residuum shall pass by intestacy.

History

Code 1981, § 53-4-65, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.

Annotations

COMMENT This section replaces former OCGA Sec. 53-2-104. This section provides that lapsed gifts of real and personal property are treated the same in that they fall to the residue of the estate. This section also provides that a lapsed share of a

residuary beneficiary will pass by intestacy unless there are other residuary beneficiaries surviving, in which case the predeceased beneficiary’s share shall go to the other residuary beneficiaries in proportion to each beneficiary’s share of the residuum.

Law reviews. - For article surveying developments in Georgia wills, trusts, and administration of estates law from

mid-1980 through mid-1981, see 33 Mercer L. Rev. 307 (1981).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 53-2-104 are included in the annotations for this Code section. Lapsed gift passed by intestacy rules. - 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 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 Robinson v. Ray, 254 Ga. 237, 327 S.E.2d 721 (1985); Tumlin v. Butler, 264 Ga. 488, 448 S.E.2d 198 (1994).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 2013–2013 · leading case: Banner v. Vandeford, 748 S.E.2d 927 (Ga. 2013).
Banner v. Vandeford, 748 S.E.2d 927 (Ga. 2013). · cites it 2× “Completing the argument, Banner asserts the probate court should have interpreted the will so as to distribute the residue to her alone inasmuch as Huscusson demonstrated his faith in her by naming her as executrix and entrusting her with power to administer the estate.”
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.