(Code 1981, §53-7-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 504, § 10; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1586, § 29; Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 18/SB 131; Ga. L. 2020, p. 377, § 1-36/HB 865.)
Law reviews.- For article surveying wills, trusts, and administration of estates, see 34 Mercer L. Rev. 323 (1982). 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).
COMMENTSubsection (a) had no counterpart in former OCGA Title 53. This subsection gives broad direction to the personal representative to pursue those acts necessary for an expeditious administration of the estate. Subsection (b) carries forward the provisions of former OCGA Sec. 53-6-26(b), allowing the beneficiaries of a testate estate or the heirs of an intestate estate to authorize the probate court to grant the fiduciary powers that are delineated for trustees in OCGA Sec. 53-12-232. This subsection modifies former law by allowing a guardian ad litem to consent on behalf of a beneficiary or heir who is not sui juris. (Former OCGA Sec. 53-6-26(b) did not include a guardian ad litem in the list of those who would consent on behalf of an individual who is not sui juris.) (For general provisions relating to guardians, see OCGA Sec. 53-11-2.) The subsection also allows the personal representative of a deceased beneficiary or heir to consent for that individual. See Code Sec. 53-1-2 for definitions of "beneficiary," "heir," and "personal representative".
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Distribution improper.
- Trial court erred in holding that a distribution proposed by an executor did not violate the terms of the decedent's will, as in manipulating the distribution so that the executor did not gain control of the family company, the executor was elevating the executor's own interests over that of the beneficiary in violation of the executor's duty under O.C.G.A. § 53- 7-1(a). Harp v. Pryor, 276 Ga. 478, 578 S.E.2d 424 (2003).
Removal of executor upheld.
- Probate court order removing an executor from an estate and ordering the executor to forfeit $79,000 in commissions and fees received and costs incurred as executor and attorney for the estate was upheld on appeal because: (1) the record showed that the attorney filed a purported estate accounting six inches thick, which was prepared by the staff and which the attorney showed little familiarity with; (2) the attorney delayed a distribution to a beneficiary by trying to force the beneficiary to create a trust, which was not required by the decedent's will; (3) the attorney filed an erroneous tax return that had to be amended as well as took a deduction the attorney knew was improper; and (4) the attorney incurred unnecessary expenses and fees by showing the decedent's house when the sale of the house was not required by the will. In re Estate of Arnsdorff, 273 Ga. App. 612, 615 S.E.2d 758 (2005).
Failure to carry out duties.
- Trial court did not abuse the court's discretion under O.C.G.A. § 53-7-55(1) in removing the executor as executor of the decedent's estate, as the executor did not carry out the duties under O.C.G.A. § 53-7-1(a); the executor did not take control of assets of the estate, the executor commingled estate funds with the executor's own funds, and the executor sold the decedent's house without obtaining an appraisal or attempting to realize the best price on the open market. In re Estate of Zeigler, 273 Ga. App. 269, 614 S.E.2d 799 (2005).
Executor's breach of fiduciary duty.
- In circumstances in which an estate executor used a power of attorney before the executor's mother's death to add the executor's name to bank accounts and a certificate of deposit, eventually taking all of the money from those accounts for the executor's own without reporting that money as part of the estate, a probate court was authorized to order the executor to turn over that money to the estate; after the executor was appointed to handle the estate, the executor knew that the executor possessed money that should have been in the estate, knowledge the executor gained by being the person who removed it from the estate, and the executor's retention of those funds promoted the executor's own interest to injury of beneficiaries of the estate, and thus was a breach of the executor's fiduciary duty. Greenway v. Hamilton, 280 Ga. 652, 631 S.E.2d 689 (2006).
Probate court order removing an executor for cause was affirmed because the executor violated the executor's fiduciary duty in numerous ways by failing to dissolve the estate business, using estate property and funds for the executor's own benefit and to pay personal bills, overpaying executor's fees, and having a conflict of interest by continuing to operate the business despite the estate losing money but personally benefiting by using the business property rent free. Myers v. Myers, 297 Ga. 490, 775 S.E.2d 145 (2015).
When the parties entered into a High-Low settlement agreement that was silent as to how the funds should be allocated between the wrongful death claim and the claims of the decedent's estate, the decedent's wife, who was also the administrator of the decedent's estate, acted in contravention of the wife's fiduciary duties to the children by arguing that none of the settlement funds should be allocated to the wrongful death claim, and the trial court erred by failing to allocate any of the settlement funds to the wrongful death claim because the trial court was not allowed to consider the decedent's wishes in apportioning the claims as the children had an absolute right to share in any recovery on that claim. Leanhart v. Knox, 351 Ga. App. 268, 830 S.E.2d 545 (2019).
Fulfillment of fiduciary duties.
- Finding that an executor fulfilled the executor's fiduciary duties pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 53-7-1(a) was not clearly erroneous because the executor was timely in the executor's distributions and properly distributed assets. In re Estate of Long, 307 Ga. App. 896, 706 S.E.2d 704 (2011).
Administrator's deed proper.
- In a purchaser's quiet title action against the executor of a testator's estate, the trial court did not err in adopting the report of a special master and in decreeing that fee simple title to the land was vested in the purchaser because it was the clear intent of the testator to give to the testator's nephew a limited fee to the property based on the contingency that the nephew live on the property, and if the nephew did not, the property was to revert to the estate; the executor was obligated to give effect to the clear intent of the testator to convey only a limited fee to the nephew, and upon a nonoccurrence of the contingency stated in the will, the property automatically reverted to the estate, and the administrator's deed from the executor to the nephew referenced the testator's will and perfected the limited estate. Mann v. Blalock, 286 Ga. 541, 690 S.E.2d 375 (2010).
No authority existed for administratrix to sign arbitration agreement on behalf of disabled child.
- Order compelling arbitration was reversed because the administratrix of an adult child, who was an incapacitated person, had no authority to sign the arbitration agreement as the child did not personally assent and there was no evidence that the administratrix had actual authority as there existed no power of attorney or any other document authorizing the administratrix to sign the arbitration agreement or to take any action on the child's behalf. Lynn v. Lowndes County Health Servs., LLC, 354 Ga. App. 242, 840 S.E.2d 623 (2020).
Appellate court applies an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing a probate court's order removing an executor; the relevant question in reviewing a removal order regarding an executor is whether the trial court had grounds to conclude that there was good cause for the removal. In re Estate of Arnsdorff, 273 Ga. App. 612, 615 S.E.2d 758 (2005).
Trustee's/executor's powers did not entitle trustee to ignore purpose of trust or commit waste.
- Trial court erred in concluding that a widow's considerable powers of control over two testamentary trusts as trustee and executor entitled her to summary judgment on two of the children's/beneficiaries' claims against the trust created for the purpose of supporting them during their lifetimes; she was required to diligently and in good faith ascertain whether they required support, and her powers over the assets did not entitle her to commit waste. Peterson v. Peterson, 303 Ga. 211, 811 S.E.2d 309 (2018).