Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §53-4-68, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.)
- 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). For survey article on wills, trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary administration for the period from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 459 (2003).
This section carries over former OCGA Sec. 53-2-107 and broadens the second paragraph of that section by allowing a condition in terrorem to take effect not merely in the event there is a limitation over to some other named person (as provided in the former statute) but rather in any case in which the will contains directions as to how the property is to be distributed if the condition in terrorem is violated.
- Condition in an in terrorem clause that provided for forfeiture of a legacy if a beneficiary contested the will was not void under O.C.G.A. § 53-4-68(b) as a disposition of the property was provided for if the condition was violated; because an action seeking removal of the executor did not challenge the validity of the will, appellant beneficiary would not violate the in terrorem clause. Sinclair v. Sinclair, 284 Ga. 500, 670 S.E.2d 59 (2008).
- Decedent's bequest to decedent's widow was not subject to any condition but was an outright gift, and therefore O.C.G.A. § 53-4-68(a), which voided conditions that were against public policy, did not apply to divest the bequest to the widow, although the widow was found to have committed undue influence in the decedent's pre-decease conveyance of property to herself and her son. Pate v. Wilson, 286 Ga. 133, 686 S.E.2d 88 (2009).
- Effect of testamentary gift to child conditioned upon specified arrangements for parental control, 11 A.L.R.4th 940.
Total Results: 7
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2022-06-30
Snippet: contains a public- policy exception, see OCGA § 53-4-68 (a) (“Conditions in a will that are impossible
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-10-05
Citation: 686 S.E.2d 88, 286 Ga. 133, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 3541, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 500
Snippet: to provide counsel for estate). Neither OCGA § 53-4-68 nor the public policy underlying Sauls v. Estate
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2009-03-09
Citation: 675 S.E.2d 19, 285 Ga. 277, 2009 Fulton County D. Rep. 754, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 70
Snippet: All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] See OCGA § 53-4-68(b). [2] The defendants in that action are the
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2008-10-27
Citation: 670 S.E.2d 59, 284 Ga. 500, 2008 Fulton County D. Rep. 3349, 2008 Ga. LEXIS 838
Snippet: direction in the will shall be carried out." OCGA § 53-4-68(b). The trial court correctly held that the in
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2005-06-06
Citation: 614 S.E.2d 59, 279 Ga. 501, 2005 Fulton County D. Rep. 1766, 2005 Ga. LEXIS 406
Snippet: the clause, and is therefore void under OCGA § 53-4-68 (b). For this reason, I dissent. Although the majority
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1948-11-17
Citation: 50 S.E.2d 330, 204 Ga. 510, 1948 Ga. LEXIS 478
Snippet: (9) (173 S.E. 836); Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 53 (4) (68 S.E. 515). "To a reasonable certainty, to your
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1940-10-19
Citation: 11 S.E.2d 795, 191 Ga. 222, 1940 Ga. LEXIS 624
Snippet: 335 (4 S.E.2d 31);Hobbs v. State, 8 Ga. App. 53 (4) (68 S.E. 515). The trouble has been in choosing between