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.
Any transfers resulting from the application of Code Section 7-1-813 are effective by reason of the account contracts involved in this article and are not to be considered as testamentary.
History
Code 1933, § 41A-3806, enacted by Ga. L. 1976, p. 1388, § 8.
Annotations
Law reviews. For article, “Commercial Law,” see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 153 (2001).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS Summary judgment was not proper when a question of fact remained as to whether the funds received by the surviving spouse passed to the survivor outside the estate and did not constitute an election to take under the will and if the
surviving spouse was therefore entitled to the statutory year’s support. Wynn v. Wynn, 202 Ga. App. 679, 415 S.E.2d 287, 1992 Ga. App. LEXIS 133 (1992), cert. denied, No. S92C0628, 1992 Ga. LEXIS 273 (Ga. Mar. 18, 1992).
Notes of Decisions
Caldwell v. Walraven, 490 S.E.2d 384 (Ga. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” Although OCGA § 7-1-815 provides that transfers resulting from § 7-1-813 (a) are “effective by reason of the account contracts involved in this article and are not to be considered testamentary,” this provision does not mean that the transfers do not occur at death, but merely…”
Suntrust Bank, Middle Georgia, N.A. v. Harper, 551 S.E.2d 419 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “14 OCGA § 7-1-815. 15 Federal statutory law codified in the Internal Revenue Code defines an individual retirement account as a “trust.”
Lowry v. Fenzel, 769 S.E.2d 522 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 7-1-815 (“Any transfers resulting from the application of [OCGA §] 7-1-813 are effective by reason of the account contracts involved in this article and are not to be considered testamentary.”
Wynn v. Wynn, 415 S.E.2d 287 (Ga. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 2× “” OCGA § 7-1-815. Thus, there exists a presumption that right of survivorship was intended by the issuance of the joint certificates of deposit, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.”
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.