Editor's notes.

- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, decisions under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-198 of the 1991 Trust Act are included in the annotations for this Code section.

Issue of fact as to whether trustees fraudulently concealed their breach of duty.

- Because there were genuine issues as to whether the trustees fraudulently concealed the trustees' breach of fiduciary duty in selling the principal trust asset to a co-trustee at a discount through a straw man in 1979, tolling the statute of limitations, and whether the beneficiaries exercised diligence in discovering the fraud, summary judgment was improper. Smith v. SunTrust Bank, 325 Ga. App. 531, 754 S.E.2d 117 (2014).

Cause of action not barred by statute of limitations.

- Trial court erred in ruling that son's 1999 breach of trust action against the parents as trustees was barred by six-year statute of limitations under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-198 (see O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307), as the son's allegations as to the parents' refusal to loan money for undergraduate work in 1986 did not allege a violation of the trust, and the 1991 allegations that the parents were not personally spending the trust fund did not result in the conclusion that the trustees breached the trust in 1991. Snuggs v. Snuggs, 275 Ga. 647, 571 S.E.2d 800 (2002) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-198).

In the employer's action to recover for theft of corporate funds, the employee was not entitled to summary judgment since the six-year statute of limitations applicable to constructive trust claims only barred the employer's action as to some, but not all, of the employee's thefts. Total Supply, Inc. v. Pridgen, 267 Ga. App. 125, 598 S.E.2d 805 (2004) (decided under former O.C.G.A. § 53-12-198).

Beneficiaries' breach of fiduciary duty claim against the trustee of a family trust was time-barred because: (1) the statute began to run when the trustee entered into a loan transaction that allegedly harmed the trust; (2) the beneficiaries did not show the trustee withheld information from the beneficiaries, deterred the beneficiaries from hiring the beneficiaries' own advisor to review the loan, or deterred the beneficiaries from timely filing suit; and (3) the beneficiaries raised no fact issue as to whether the beneficiaries used diligence to discover any fraud that would toll the statute. Mayfield v. Heiman, 317 Ga. App. 322, 730 S.E.2d 685 (2012).

Retroactive applicability of statute of limitations.

- Revised Georgia Trust Code's provisions apply to any trust irrespective of the date the trust was created, with two exceptions: to the extent it would impair vested rights, and except as otherwise provided by law. There is no vested right in a statute of limitation, and to the extent that Mayfield v. Heiman, 317 Ga. App. 322, (2012), suggests that O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307(a) does not apply retroactively, that suggestion is non-binding dicta. Smith v. SunTrust Bank, 325 Ga. App. 531, 754 S.E.2d 117 (2014).

Suit against trustee governed by six year limitations period, not two year.

- Because the letter to a trustee from the trustee's accountants was simply a form of general correspondence that did not contain the type of detailed information contemplated by the Georgia General Assembly for the letter to qualify as a report, the letter was not a report for purposes of the Trust Code, O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307; therefore, a beneficiary's cause of action against the trustee was not subject to the two-year statute of limitations but, rather, the six-year statute of limitations applied. Hasty v. Castleberry, 293 Ga. 727, 749 S.E.2d 676 (2013).

Claims barred by two-year limitations period.

- Trustee was entitled to summary judgment in a breach of trust suit because the plaintiffs' claims that accrued more than two years before the filing of their lawsuit were barred by the two-year statute of limitation under O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307(a) as the uncontroverted evidence showed that the trustee sent detailed trust statements to the plaintiffs on a quarterly, yearly, and sometimes monthly basis until the trust was exhausted, which sufficiently put the plaintiffs on notice of any claim. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Cook, 332 Ga. App. 834, 775 S.E.2d 199 (2015), cert. denied, No. S15C1753, 2015 Ga. LEXIS 720 (Ga. 2015).

Cited in Ludwig v. Ludwig, 281 Ga. 724, 642 S.E.2d 638 (2007).