(Code 1981, §53-3-6, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1586, § 14; Ga. L. 2020, p. 377, § 1-7/HB 865.)
Code Commission notes.- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1996, the second enacted version of subsection (c) was redesignated as subsection (d).
Law reviews.- For article discussing decisions involving the year's support provision of the Georgia Code, see 3 Ga. St. B.J. 427 (1967). For article surveying wills, trusts, and administration of estates, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 323 (1982).
COMMENTThis section carries forward the provisions of former OCGA Sec. 53-5-8 that relate to the filing of the petition, the mailing of a copy of the petition to the tax commissioner, and the notice given to the personal representative of the estate and interested persons. Provisions relating to the actual award of year's support appear in Section 53-3-7.
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Editor's notes.
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former Code 1882, § 2573, former Civil Code 1895, § 3467, former Civil Code 1910, § 4043, former Code 1933, §§ 113-1005, 113-1005.1, 113-1005.2, and 113-1005.3, and former O.C.G.A. § 53-5-9 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
Year's support.
- In a probate matter, a trial court erred by dismissing an executor's objection to the setting aside of certain real property as a year's support in favor of an estate as the executor had filed an objection within 15 days of the default order amending the year's support order, pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 9-11-55(a), and by paying costs. The provisions of § 9-11-55(a) relating to the opening of default judgments as a matter of right within 15 days of default applied to a year's support proceedings in probate court. In re Estate of Ehlers, 289 Ga. App. 14, 656 S.E.2d 169 (2007).
Probate court erred by allowing the objections of a bank and a decedent's parents solely on the basis of adverse title and by denying a year's support to the widow when the widow failed to meet the resulting burden of proof because the probate court lacked the jurisdiction under Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. III, Para. I and O.C.G.A. § 15-9-30 to determine that the relevant money-market account and real property were not part of the estate; despite the jurisdictional limitation and the lack of an appropriate objection, the probate court proceeded to conduct a hearing as to the amount necessary for the widow's support, thereby inappropriately placing upon the widow a burden of proof that was contrary to O.C.G.A. § 53-3-7(a) and otherwise lacking in the absence of the jurisdictionally defective objections to the petition. In re Mahmoodzadeh, 314 Ga. App. 383, 724 S.E.2d 797 (2012).
Due process requirements satisfied.
- After the executor of a decedent's will was given notice of a widow's application for year's support, due process requirements were satisfied. Ingram v. Ruff, 236 Ga. App. 309, 511 S.E.2d 549 (1999).
Absence of signatures.
- Conformed copy of a lost will was properly admitted into evidence, notwithstanding that the copy did not bear signatures of either the testator or the witnesses, especially as the attorney who prepared and witnessed the will testified that the copy was the same as the executed original. Smith v. Srinivasa, 269 Ga. 736, 506 S.E.2d 111 (1998).
Evidence held sufficient to rebut presumption of revocation.
- Presumption of revocation was properly found to have been rebutted since (1) the attorney who prepared the will kept in touch with the testator until shortly before the testator's death, and the testator never mentioned changing or revoking the testator's will, and (2) just a month before the testator's death, the testator affirmed to the testator's daughter that the testator wished certain property to be disposed of as stated in the will and never indicated any desire to revoke or change the testator's will. Smith v. Srinivasa, 269 Ga. 736, 506 S.E.2d 111 (1998).
Return by appraisers required within 30 days of appointment.
- Provision as to time within which appraisers may make their return is directory; and if they should fail to make their return within the statutory period, the ordinary (now probate judge) could compel them to act, or appoint new appraisers. Goss v. Greenaway, 70 Ga. 130 (1883) (decided under former Code 1882, § 2573); Whatley v. Watters, 136 Ga. 701, 71 S.E. 1103 (1911);(decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 4043).
After the ordinary (now probate judge) receives a belated return and cites interested parties, by publication as prescribed by law, to show cause why the return should not be approved and made the judgment of the court, and such return is duly approved, it is too late for a creditor to object that the return was not made within 30 days of the appointment of the appraisers. Goss v. Greenaway, 70 Ga. 130 (1883) (decided under former Code 1882, § 2573); Whatley v. Watters, 136 Ga. 701, 71 S.E. 1103 (1911);(decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 4043).
Widow's right to a year's support is not affected by the appraisers' dereliction of duty for which she is not responsible. Goss v. Greenaway, 70 Ga. 130 (1883) (decided under former Code 1882, § 2573); Whatley v. Watters, 136 Ga. 701, 71 S.E. 1103 (1911);(decided under former Civil Code 1910, § 4043).
Incomplete listing of interested persons.
- Widow's application for a year's support was not void merely because the list of interested persons may have been incomplete. Scott v. Grant, 227 Ga. App. 1, 487 S.E.2d 627 (1997) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-5-8).
Service of notice of action.
- Filing an application for year's support without proper service does not toll the three-year limitation period of former O.C.G.A.53-5-2(d) for year's support proceedings. In re Estate of Reece, 243 Ga. App. 173, 532 S.E.2d 726 (2000) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-5-8).
Cited in Mathews v. Rountree, 123 Ga. 327, 51 S.E. 423 (1905); Foster v. Turnbull, 126 Ga. 654, 55 S.E. 925 (1906); Winn v. Lunsford, 130 Ga. 436, 61 S.E. 9 (1908); Young v. Anderson, 19 Ga. App. 551, 91 S.E. 900 (1917); Beddingfield v. Old Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., 175 Ga. 172, 165 S.E. 61 (1932); Rooke v. Day, 46 Ga. App. 379, 167 S.E. 762 (1932); Shingler v. Furst, 52 Ga. App. 39, 182 S.E. 72 (1935); Smith v. Brogan, 207 Ga. 642, 63 S.E.2d 647 (1951); Sanders v. Fulton County, 111 Ga. App. 434, 142 S.E.2d 293 (1965); Outlaw v. Outlaw, 121 Ga. App. 284, 173 S.E.2d 459 (1970); Strickland v. Trust Co., 230 Ga. 714, 198 S.E.2d 668 (1973); Allan v. Allan, 236 Ga. 199, 223 S.E.2d 445 (1976); Tribble v. Knight, 238 Ga. 84, 231 S.E.2d 68 (1976); Sudderth v. Bailey, 239 Ga. 385, 236 S.E.2d 823 (1977); Richards v. Wadsworth, 230 Ga. App. 421, 496 S.E.2d 535 (1998).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
Am. Jur. 2d.
- 31 Am. Jur. 2d, Executors and Administrators, §§ 488 et seq., 717.
C.J.S.- 34 C.J.S., Executors and Administrators, § 472.
ALR.- Conclusiveness of statement or decision of accountant or similar third person under contract between others requiring property to be valued by him, 50 A.L.R.2d 1268.