Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 53-12-307 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 53-12-307 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 53-12-307

TITLE 53 WILLS, TRUSTS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES

Section 12. (Revised Trust Code of 2010) Trusts, 53-12-1 through 53-12-506.

ARTICLE 14 TRUSTEE LIABILITY

53-12-307. Limitation of actions.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.

(Code 1981, §53-12-307, enacted by Ga. L. 2010, p. 579, § 1/SB 131.)

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).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 53-12-307

Total Results: 1  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Hasty v. Castleberry, 293 Ga. 727 (Ga. 2013).

Cited 12 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 7, 2013 | 749 S.E.2d 676, 2013 Fulton County D. Rep. 3065

...We therefore affirm the trial court’s ruling that William’s attempt to rely on the equitable defenses of unclean hands, laches, and equitable estoppel fails. 2. William next contends that Joan failed to file her claim within the prescribed statute of limitations of OCGA § 53-12-307. We disagree. OCGA § 53-12-307 (a) provides two different limitations periods with respect to actions against trustees....
...d from his accountants, and which he showed to Joan, constituted a “written report” sufficient to trigger the running of the two-year statute of limitations upon Joan’s receipt of it in late August 2005. William is incorrect. Pursuant to OCGA § 53-12-307 (a), two things must occur in order for a beneficiary’s breach of trust claim to become subject to the two-year, rather than six-year, statute of limitations: (1) the beneficiary must receive a “written report,” and (2) that writte...
...years after the beneficiary discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the subject of [the] claim.” Id. As explained more fully below, because the document that William provided to Joan did not constitute a “report” as required by OCGA § 53-12-307 (a), Joan’s claim against William was subject to the six-year, rather than the two-year, statute of limitations. As an initial matter, because the term “report” is not defined in OCGA § 53-12-307 (a), we must determine what type of written document would constitute a “report” as intended by the Legislature for purposes of OCGA § 53-12-307 (a)....
...At the same time, we must seek to effectuate the intent of the legislature. (Citations omitted.) Slakman v. Continental Cas. Co., 277 Ga. 189, 191 (587 SE2d 24) (2003). Where, as here, the term “report” is undefined and could have several meanings based on the manner in which it is used in OCGA § 53-12-307 (a), “it becomes necessary to give proper consideration to other related statutes in order to ascertain the legislative intent in reference to the whole system of laws of which [OCGA § 53-12-307 (a)] is a part.” DeKalb County v. J & A Pipeline Co., 263 Ga. 645, 648 (437 SE2d 327) (1993). In this connection, we must presume that OCGA § 53-12-307 (a) was enacted by the legislature with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it....
...the common law and the constitution, but also with reference to other statutes and the decisions of the courts. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Retention Alternatives, Ltd. v. Hayward, 285 Ga. 437, 440 (2) (678 SE2d 877) (2009). Although OCGA § 53-12-307 does not specify what would constitute a written “report,” other portions of Georgia’s Trust Code do define the term “report.” Specifically, OCGA § 53-12-243, which is also a part of the Trust Code, requires a “report” fro...
...Legislature for it to qualify as a “report,” the letter cannot be considered to be a “report” for purposes of the Trust Code. Therefore, Joan’s cause of action against William was not subject to the two-year statute of limitations of OCGA § 53-12-307....