Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-2-3 (2026)
Accrual of Claim - Fraud.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
In actions seeking relief on the ground of fraud where the statute has created a bar, the claim must not be considered as having accrued until the discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact constituting the fraud, after which he must have two years within which to prosecute his action.
(Code 1852, §2492; Code 1867, §2916; Code 1876, §3242; Code 1886, §2630; Code 1896, §2813; Code 1907, §4852; Code 1923, §8966; Code 1940, T. 7, §42; Acts 1984, 2nd Ex. Sess., No. 85-39, p. 40, §2.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 267
cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Jacqueline D. Henderson v. Washington Nat'l, 454 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2006).
Jacqueline D. Henderson v. Washington Nat'l, 454 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir. 2006). “Code § 6-2-38 (i), and the inapplicability of the tolling statute, see Ala.Code § 6-2-3, precluded any possibility that Henderson could prevail against the instate defendant Haney, which thus ensured complete diversity of citizenship.”
Dgb, LLC v. Michael Hinds, 55 So. 3d 218 (Ala. 2010). “The investors argue that all of their remaining claims fall within the savings clause of § 6-2-3, Ala.Code 1975, which states: “In actions seeking relief on the ground of fraud where the statute has created a bar, the claim must not be considered as having accrued until the…”
Rutledge v. Freeman, 914 So. 2d 364 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004). “, that she had breached the standard of care at some point on or before December 6, 2000, such that Rutledge could properly rely on Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-3. In his affidavit filed in response to Freeman's summary-judgment motion, Rutledge testified: "During a [f]amily [c]ourt…”
Weaver v. Firestone, 155 So. 3d 952 (Ala. 2013). “Code 1975, § 6-2-3, or the doctrine of equitable tolling be applied to extend the Plaintiffs time to file its lawsuit against the Defendant, when Plaintiff alleges in its personal injury complaint that: 1) the Defendant has committed a crime wherein the Plaintiff is the victim,…”
Aliant Bank v. Four Star Invs., Inc., 244 So. 3d 896 (Ala. 2017). “onds were issued, of the general process by which the bond proceeds would be disbursed and that Aliant knew that it could inspect the Twelve Oaks property to view construction progress at any time but apparently failed to do so; accordingly, they argue, Aliant should have been…”
Waldrup v. Hartford Life Ins., 598 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (N.D. Ala. 2008). “) Plaintiffs contend, however, that they are entitled to tolling of the statute of limitations under the savings clause of Ala.Code § 6-2-3. Under Alabama’s savings clause, the two-year statute of limitations does not begin to run in a fraud case until “the discovery by the…”
Gilmore v. M B Realty Co., L.L.C., 895 So. 2d 200 (Ala. 2004). “Furthermore, Plaintiffs presented no evidence as to their reliance on these statements or to meet their burden of proving that any claim would fall under the savings provision of Ala.Code § 6-2-3, so this issue may be properly disregarded by this Court.”
New Joy Young Rest., Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 667 So. 2d 1384 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995). “" At no time has the taxpayer presented testimony or documentary evidence to dispute fraud.”
Price v. Ala. One Credit Union (Ex parte Price), 244 So. 3d 949 (Ala. 2017). “In response to the contention that his claims were time-barred, Price argued that the statutes of limitations were tolled as to his claims pursuant to § 6-2-3, Ala. Code 1975. Price alleged that he did not discover the fraudulent activities of Lunsford and/or Alabama One until…”
Coilplus-Alabama, Inc. v. Vann, 53 So. 3d 898 (Ala. 2010). “With regard to its fraud claim brought under the ALSLA, Coilplus argues that § 6-5-574 of the ALSLA sets out the specific statutory period for the commencement of actions and exceptions to that period and that § 6-2-3, which provides that in actions seeking relief on the ground…”
Spain v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 872 So. 2d 101 (Ala. 2003). “"Under § 6-2-3, a fraud claim accrues at the time of the discovery by the aggrieved party of the fact constituting the fraud.”
Gray v. Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co., 623 So. 2d 1156 (Ala. 1993). “Gray first argues that the trial court erred in determining that his claim for fraudulent misrepresentation was barred by the statute of limitations. At the time the alleged misrepresentation began in 1978, a claim for fraud was subject to a one-year statute of limitations.”
— Ala. Code § 6-2-3(b) — 2 cases
Ex Parte Chatmon, 968 So. 2d 999 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
United States Steel Corp. v. Chatmon, 968 So. 2d 999 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
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.