O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307 (2019)
Limitation of actions
(a) Unless a claim is previously barred by adjudication, consent, limitation, or otherwise, if a beneficiary has received a written report that adequately discloses the existence of a claim against the trustee for a breach of trust, the claim shall be barred as to that beneficiary unless a proceeding to assert the claim is commenced within two years after receipt of the report. A report adequately discloses existence of a claim if it provides sufficient information so that the beneficiary knows of such claim or reasonably should have inquired into the existence of such claim. If the beneficiary has not received a report which adequately discloses the existence of a claim against the trustee for a breach of trust, such claim shall be barred as to that beneficiary unless a proceeding to assert such claim is commenced within six years after the beneficiary discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the subject of such claim. (b) A successor trustee’s claim against a predecessor trustee shall be barred unless a proceeding to assert such claim is commenced within two years after such successor trustee takes office. (c) A trustee’s claim against a cotrustee shall be barred unless a proceeding to assert such claim is commenced within two years after the date the cause of action against the cotrustee arises.
History
Code 1981, § 53-12-307, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131.
Annotations
Law reviews. - For annual survey on
wills, trusts, guardianships, and fiduciary administration, see 66 Mercer L. Rev. 231 (2014).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS 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).