breach of trust claim in Georgia

2012See Snuggs v. Snuggs, 275 Ga. 647, 647-648 (1) ( 571 SE2d 800 ) (2002) (“The applicable statute of limitation for a breach of trust claim ... , is, in relevant part, six years from the date the beneficiary discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the subject of the claim.”) (punctuation and footnote omitted).

2012See Snuggs v. Snuggs, 275 Ga. 647, 647-648 (1) ( 571 SE2d 800 ) (2002) (“The applicable statute of limitation for a breach of trust claim ... , is, in relevant part, six years from the date the beneficiary discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the subject of the claim.”) (punctuation and footnote omitted).

2016See id. at 164 and n. 6.

2015Rollins I, supra, 321 Ga. App. at 140.

2015See Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise, Inc. v. Leon, 282 Ga. App. 439, 448 (4) ( 638 SE2d 879 ) (2006); see also Mon Ami Intl., Inc. v. Gale, 264 Ga. App. 739 (3) ( 592 SE2d 83 ) (2003).

2015See Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise, Inc. v. Leon, 282 Ga. App. 439, 448 (4) ( 638 SE2d 879 ) (2006); see also Mon Ami Intl., Inc. v. Gale, 264 Ga. App. 739 (3) ( 592 SE2d 83 ) (2003).

2015See Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise, Inc. v. Leon, 282 Ga. App. 439, 448 (4) ( 638 SE2d 879 ) (2006); see also Mon Ami Intl., Inc. v. Gale, 264 Ga. App. 739 (3) ( 592 SE2d 83 ) (2003).

2015See Monterrey Mexican Restaurant of Wise, Inc. v. Leon, 282 Ga. App. 439, 448 (4) ( 638 SE2d 879 ) (2006); see also Mon Ami Intl., Inc. v. Gale, 264 Ga. App. 739 (3) ( 592 SE2d 83 ) (2003).

2015The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants with respect to the claim for attorney fees except with respect to the breach of trust claim for failure to make proper accountings. 7 The Court of Appeals did not address plaintiffs’ assertion that the trial court erred in failing to find the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by replacing marketable securities held in the trusts with illiquid investments in family trust entities, finding review of that issue was not ripe given its holding that plaintiffs are due an accounting of the family entities. 8 We reject plaintiffs’ as

2015The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants with respect to the claim for attorney fees except with respect to the breach of trust claim for failure to make proper accountings. 7 The Court of Appeals did not address plaintiffs’ assertion that the trial court erred in failing to find the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by replacing marketable securities held in the trusts with illiquid investments in family trust entities, finding review of that issue was not ripe given its holding that plaintiffs are due an accounting of the family entities. 8 We reject plaintiffs’ as

2015In the subsequent motions, the City sought additional discovery to respond to the OTCs’ summary judgment motion on the new breach of trust claim and the conversion claim that the Supreme Court held the trial court had not addressed. “[W] e will not reverse a trial court’s decision on discovery matters absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Ford Motor Co. v. Gibson, 283 Ga. 398, 401 (1) ( 659 SE2d 346 ) (2008) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2015In the subsequent motions, the City sought additional discovery to respond to the OTCs’ summary judgment motion on the new breach of trust claim and the conversion claim that the Supreme Court held the trial court had not addressed. “[W] e will not reverse a trial court’s decision on discovery matters absent a clear abuse of discretion.” Ford Motor Co. v. Gibson, 283 Ga. 398, 401 (1) ( 659 SE2d 346 ) (2008) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2013See Hammond v. Hammond, 290 Ga. 518 (1) ( 722 SE2d 729 ) (2012); Hancock v. Bryan County Bd. of Ed., 240 Ga. App. 622 (2) ( 522 SE2d 661 ) (1999). (b) Further, Reliance argues that, regardless of the standard of care applied to the breach of trust claim, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the jury verdict because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Reliance breached its duties as trustee with respect to each and every one of the nineteen challenged distributions to Mr. Candler.

2013See Hammond v. Hammond, 290 Ga. 518 (1) ( 722 SE2d 729 ) (2012); Hancock v. Bryan County Bd. of Ed., 240 Ga. App. 622 (2) ( 522 SE2d 661 ) (1999). (b) Further, Reliance argues that, regardless of the standard of care applied to the breach of trust claim, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the jury verdict because there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Reliance breached its duties as trustee with respect to each and every one of the nineteen challenged distributions to Mr. Candler.

2012Although the Revised Georgia Trust Code became effective July 1,2010, it applies to any trust regardless of the date such trust was created, with two exceptions: “to the extent it would impair vested rights” and “except as otherwise provided by law.” OCGA § 53-12-1 (b); see also McPherson v. McPherson, 307 Ga. App. 548, 550 (1) (a) ( 705 SE2d 314 ) (2011).

2012Although the Revised Georgia Trust Code became effective July 1,2010, it applies to any trust regardless of the date such trust was created, with two exceptions: “to the extent it would impair vested rights” and “except as otherwise provided by law.” OCGA § 53-12-1 (b); see also McPherson v. McPherson, 307 Ga. App. 548, 550 (1) (a) ( 705 SE2d 314 ) (2011).