O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 53-8-2 (2019)

Real property

✓ 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 personal representative is authorized to invest estate funds in real property after first obtaining an order to that effect from the probate court or from the superior court. Service shall be made as provided in Chapter 11 of this title to the heirs of an intestate estate or the beneficiaries of a will. The court shall be authorized to grant the order immediately if the heirs or beneficiaries acknowledge service and consent to the petition or at any time after ten days after perfection of service.

History

Code 1981, § 53-8-2, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10.

Annotations

Law reviews. - For note discussing

and comparing the prudent man rule and the legal list rule in trustee investment, see 15 Mercer L. Rev. 530 (1964).

COMMENT This section carries forward former OCGA Sec. 53-8-5. As indicated by Code Sec. 53-8-1(a), the provisions of this Code section create a ‘‘safe harbor’’ for investments by personal representatives. JUDICIAL DECISIONS Editor’s notes. - In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Civil Code 1910,

§ 4068, and former Code 1933, § 113-1517, are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Absence of evidence of obtaining order authorizing investment. - In the absence of evidence that the administrator or guardian first obtained an order from the judge of the superior court authorizing the investment, the administrator or guardian is liable to the heirs of the estate for the money belonging to the estate which the administrator has invested in real estate, notwithstanding that the administrator or guardian acted in good faith and with the approval of the ordinary (now probate judge) and that the minors received the benefit of the investment as a home. Paulk v. Roberts, 42 Ga.

App. 79, 155 S.E. 55 (1930) (decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 4068). While an executor or administrator cannot invest funds of the estate in lands, unless authorized by the will or by order of the superior court judge in term or vacation, the executor or administrator is not required or authorized to sell real estate except when it is necessary for the purpose of paying the debts or making distribution otherwise than in kind. Robinson v. Georgia Sav. Bank & Trust Co., 185 Ga. 688, 196 S.E. 395 (1938) (decided under former Code 1933, § 113-157).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Executors and Administrators, §§ 510, 511, 520. C.J.S. - 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, §§ 274 et seq., 357. ALR. - Effect of beneficiary’s consent

to, acquiescence in, or ratification of, improper investments or loans (including failure to invest) by trustee or other fiduciary, 128 A.L.R. 4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1983–1985 · leading case: Perling v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 300 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 1983).
Perling v. Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank, 300 S.E.2d 649 (Ga. 1983). · cites it 4× “OCGA § 53-8-2 (Code Ann. § 113-1531). The prudent man statute became effective in Georgia after the execution of the instruments before us and we cannot consider it in deciding these cases.”
Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. Haskins, 327 S.E.2d 192 (Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 53-8-2. The bank contends there can be no liability for the bond losses because they were proper fiduciary investments when made and the bank was authorized to retain them.”
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.