O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 23-2-56 (2019)

Consummation of fraud

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

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.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Fraud may be consummated by signs or tricks, or through agents employed to deceive, or by any other unfair way used to cheat another.

History

Orig. Code 1863, § 3107; Code 1868, § 3119; Code 1873, § 3176; Code 1882, § 3176; Civil Code 1895,

§ 4028; Civil Code 1910, § 4625; Code 1933, § 37-705.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Complaint sufficiently set forth fraud allegations. - Trial court erred by dismissing the plaintiff ’s complaint for failure to state a claim because the plaintiff pled viable claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and civil racketeering based on the defendant filing a medical lien seeking full chargemaster rate or sticker price of the defendant’s medical procedures, which did not represent a reasonable charge for the treatment received with the intent to collect more than a reasonable charge for the services rendered to the plaintiff. Clouthier v. Medical Center of Central Georgia, Inc., 351 Ga. App. 883, 833 S.E.2d 584 (2019). Post-nuptial agreement procured by fraud. - After the husband engaged counsel to draw up a formal post-nuptial agreement, and the husband moved to enforce the agreement when the wife filed for divorce, the post-nuptial agreement was unenforceable as the wife testified that the wife signed the agreement because the husband represented to the wife that, if the wife signed the agreement, the husband would understand that the wife

loved the husband, and the husband would tear up the agreement; the husband procured the wife’s signature on the agreement under the pretense that the agreement would never be enforced and, in fact, that the agreement would be destroyed, and the evidence was sufficient to establish the existence of fraud in procuring the agreement. Murray v. Murray, 299 Ga. 703, 791 S.E.2d 816 (2016). Cited in Floyd v. Boss, 174 Ga. 544, 163 S.E. 606 (1932); Jenkins v. Cobb, 47 Ga. App. 456, 170 S.E. 698 (1933); Morton v. Wallace, 177 Ga. 856, 171 S.E. 720 (1933); Hogg v. Hogg, 206 Ga. 691, 58 S.E.2d 403 (1950); Treadwell v. Treadwell, 216 Ga. 156, 115 S.E.2d 535 (1960); Gaines v. Watts, 224 Ga. 321, 161 S.E.2d 830 (1968); Patterson v. Castellaw, 119 Ga. App. 712, 168 S.E.2d 838 (1969); Watts v. Gaines, 226 Ga. 503, 175 S.E.2d 871 (1970); Ringer v. Lockhart, 240 Ga. 82, 239 S.E.2d 349 (1977); Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 152 Ga. App. 16, 262 S.E.2d 147 (1979); McGaha v. Kwon, 161 Ga. App. 216, 288 S.E.2d 289 (1982).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 27 Am. Jur. 2d, Equity, § 20. 37 Am. Jur. 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 12 et seq. C.J.S. - 30 C.J.S., Equity, § 48. 37 C.J.S., Fraud, § 1 et seq. ALR. - False representations in business transaction as within statute relating to “confidence game”, 9 A.L.R. 1527; 56 A.L.R. 727.

Use of mails for sale of articles having superstitious associations, 34 A.L.R. 1292. Genuine making of instrument for purpose of defrauding as constituting forgery, 41 A.L.R. 229; 46 A.L.R. 1529; 51 A.L.R. 568.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1988–2019 · leading case: Miller v. Lomax, 596 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Miller v. Lomax, 596 S.E.2d 232 (Ga. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See also OCGA § 23-2-56. Lomax denies the existence of a confidential relationship between Thomas Miller and Lee Miller because the Settlement Agreement was reached at arm’s length and through representation by counsel.”

Brown v. Mann, 514 S.E.2d 922 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “" While Brown recognizes that this is a correct statement of the law, see OCGA § 23-2-56, she argues that it is not adjusted to the facts of this case because the only agent involved was the real estate agent who was actually a dual agent.”

Murray v. Murray, 791 S.E.2d 816 (Ga. 2016). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 23-2-56. While “the mere failure to comply with a promise to perform an act in the future is not fraud in a legal sense .”

Repub. Claims Serv. Co. v. Hoyal, 435 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “On the other hand, it is nonsensical to dismiss a living case on the fiction that it is dead, only to have it refiled because it was really not dead, with new claims for damages for a dismissal caused by unfair tactics (see OCGA § 23-2-56) or for acts imposed for delay or…”

Graham v. Hogan, 366 S.E.2d 219 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988). “The particular circumstances of a case may give rise to a duty to disclose, violation of which might be fraud (§ 23-2-53), as might be any unfair way used to cheat another (§ 23-2-56); and being in itself subtle, fraud may be proved by slight circumstances.”

Francis Clouthier v. the Med. Ctr. of Cent. Georgia, Inc. (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “) OCGA § 23-2-56. Further, even “slight circumstances may be sufficient to carry conviction of [fraud’s] existence.”

O'Berry v. Cooper, 413 S.E.2d 736 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). “The particular circumstances of a case may give rise to a duty to disclose, violation of which might be fraud (§ 23-2-53), as might be any unfair way used to cheat another (§ 23-2-56) and being *99 in itself subtle, fraud may be proved by slight circumstances.”

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.