O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 (2019)

Five-year tolling for unrepresented estate - In favor of estate

✓ 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

The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate or between the termination of one administration and the commencement of another shall not be counted against his estate in calculating any limitation applicable to the bringing of an action, provided that such time shall not exceed five years. At the expiration of the five years the limitation shall commence, even if the cause of action accrued after the person’s death.

History

Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 235, §§ 21, 40; Code 1863, § 2869; Code 1868, § 2877; Code

1873, § 2928; Code 1882, § 2928; Civil Code 1895, § 3781; Civil Code 1910, § 4376; Code 1933, § 3-803.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Tolling calculation is mandatory. - Tolling calculation was mandatory in every instance when the statute was applicable; the tolling provisions of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 are triggered by operation of law. Legum v. Crouch, 208 Ga. App. 185, 430 S.E.2d 360, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 480 (1993). Catchline not determinative as to whether section mandatory. - Appellees who cited the descriptive heading or

catchline of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 to assert that the tolling provision was not triggered by operation of law, but could only be invoked on a case-by-case basis and in benefit of the estate by its legal representative were in error. The descriptive heading or catchline immediately preceding the text of a Code section does not constitute a part of such statute and is not controlling regarding the construction or interpretation thereof. Legum v. Crouch,

208 Ga. App. 185, 430 S.E.2d 360, 1993 Ga. App. LEXIS 480 (1993). This section can be invoked only by legal representative, and does not apply in favor of heirs at law who elect to sue in their own right. Lazenby v. Ware, 178 Ga. 463, 173 S.E. 86, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 78 (1934); Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. Mize, 56 Ga. App. 327, 192 S.E. 527, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 342 (1937); State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pace, 176 Ga. App. 737, 337 S.E.2d 401, 1985 Ga. App. LEXIS 2520 (1985). Appointment of a temporary administrator. - Appointment of a temporary administrator did not result in the representation of the estate for purposes of tolling; consequently, the statute of limitation as to the estate claims remained tolled from the mother’s death until the administrator was named the permanent administrator, less than two years before the current action. Somani v. Cannon, 363 Ga. App. 610, 872 S.E.2d 9, 2022 Ga. App. LEXIS 182 (2022). Five years are allowed before statute of limitations begins to run against unrepresented estate; after that time, statute runs against it as in ordinary cases. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. Mize, 56 Ga. App. 327, 192 S.E. 527, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 342 (1937). While limitation statutes run against estates, when estates are unrepresented such statutes are tolled between death and appointment of representative or between representations for five years, provided representation is taken within that period of time. Harrison v. Holsenbeck, 208 Ga. 410, 67 S.E.2d 311, 1951 Ga. LEXIS 395 (1951). After expiration of time fixed by this section, statute begins to run, regardless of whether any administration is had on estate or not. Smith v. Turner, 112 Ga. 533, 37 S.E. 705, 1900 Ga. LEXIS 235 (1900). Former Code 1933, § 3-803 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92) had no application to action under § 51-4-5 brought by an administrator to recover damages for benefit of dependent next of kin of deceased, when action was one in which estate was nowise interested or concerned, but when interested parties are permitted merely to

use name of administrator in bringing action. Patellis v. King, 52 Ga. App. 118, 182 S.E. 808, 1935 Ga. App. LEXIS 73 (1935). Tolling not applicable to statute of repose. - Pursuant to a question certified by the federal appellate court, the Supreme Court of Georgia finds that since the tolling of the ultimate statute of repose for medical malpractice cases is not required by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71(d) or O.C.G.A. § 9-3-73(a) and it would contravene the mandatory language of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71(b), the unrepresented estate statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92, does not toll the statute of repose during the time that the estate of a claimant is unrepresented; thus, the district court properly dismissed the state court medical malpractice claims brought by the administrator of the estate of the claimant because the claims were time-barred and could not be extended by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92. Simmons v. United States, 421 F.3d 1199, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 18157 (11th Cir. 2005). Statutory language not addressed to estates adjudicated “fully administered.” - Language in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 tolling the running of the statute of limitation “between the termination of one administration and the commencement of another” is not addressed to those estates which have been adjudicated “fully administered,” but instead applies in situations when one administration has come to an end - is terminated - but the estate has not been fully administered due, e.g., to the death, removal, substitution, or renunciation of the administrator or executor. Wilson v. Tara Ford, Inc., 200 Ga. App. 98, 406 S.E.2d 807, 1991 Ga. App. LEXIS 756 (1991). Action by administrator in individual capacity. - O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 does not apply to action for wrongful death by the administrator in an individual capacity when the estate has no interest. Childers v. Tauber, 160 Ga. App. 713, 288 S.E.2d 5, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3180, 1981 Ga. App. LEXIS 3198 (1981). No tolling because estate was not necessary party in challenging revocable trust. - Because a decedent died in May 2013, the two-year period in O.C.G.A. § 53-12-45(a) barred the niece’s

challenge to the revocable trust asserted in January 2017; even if § 53-12-45(a) was a statute of limitations that could be tolled by fraud, the trustee did not act to conceal the trust’s existence or contents. The statute was not tolled by the failure to appoint an estate representative because the estate was not a necessary party. Howell v. Bates, 350 Ga. App. 708, 830 S.E.2d 250, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 358 (2019). Five year period of § 9-2-60, relating to dismissals for want of prosecution, was not a limitation within the meaning of former Code 1933, § 3-803 (see now O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92). Swint v. Smith, 219 Ga. 532, 134 S.E.2d 595, 1964 Ga. LEXIS 311 (1964). Construction with O.C.G.A. § 9-371(a). - Because the evidence presented on appeal adequately showed that the decedent estate’s claim filed by the personal representative under O.C.G.A. § 51-4-5 was filed two months after the two-year statute of limitation under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-71(a) expired, despite the application of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92, the trial court properly dismissed the claim as time-barred. Goodman v. Satilla Health Servs., 290 Ga. App. 6, 658 S.E.2d 792, 2008 Ga. App. LEXIS 233 (2008). Appointment of temporary administratrix is not “representation” on estate, within provisions of this section. Scott v. Atwell, 63 Ga. 764, 1879 Ga. LEXIS 334 (1879); Baumgartner v. McKinnon, 137 Ga. 165, 73 S.E. 518, 1911 Ga. LEXIS 341 (1911); Collins v. Henry, 155 Ga. 886, 118 S.E. 729, 1923 Ga. LEXIS 180 (1923). Under Georgia law, the fact that an estate is unrepresented tolls the statute of limitations. Although a temporary administratrix may file an action for the collection of debts owed the decedent (O.C.G.A. § 53-7-103, pre-1988 probate Code), the temporary administrator is not considered a representative of the estate for the purposes of the tolling provision. Miller v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1180, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13018 (N.D. Ga. 1983). For summary judgment purposes, a decedent’s symptoms which occurred nearly

two years after a doctor’s alleged misdiagnosis, but less than two years before the decedent’s death, were a new or subsequent injury; because the decedent’s husband was only appointed temporary administrator of the decedent’s estate, the limitation period was tolled under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92, and thus summary judgment ruling that the estate’s claim for pain and suffering was untimely was error. Kitchens v. Brusman, 280 Ga. App. 163, 633 S.E.2d 585, 2006 Ga. App. LEXIS 781 (2006). When entire estate is set apart as year’s support and no appeal is taken from such judgment, there is no estate to be administered, no assets which administrator can reclaim, and no tolling of statute of limitations under this section. McLanahan v. Keith, 135 Ga. App. 117, 217 S.E.2d 420, 1975 Ga. App. LEXIS 1589 (1975) (see O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92). Action on note under seal on which payees had died, having been brought within 20 years after period of five years which is not to be counted against unrepresented estate, was not barred as against administrator in whose name it was proceeding. Citizens & S. Nat’l Bank v. Mize, 56 Ga. App. 327, 192 S.E. 527, 1937 Ga. App. LEXIS 342 (1937). Effect of abatement of letters of administration. - Appointment of administrator terminates bar of statute of limitations, but if letters of administrator are abated, statute will not run until there is another appointment of a qualified administrator. Garland v. Milling, 6 Ga. 310, 1849 Ga. LEXIS 44 (1849). Difference in treatment with legally incompetent individuals. - Provision of O.C.G.A. § 9-3-73(b) making tolling unavailable for legally incompetent persons in medical malpractice cases does not violate the equal protection clause, U.S. Const., amend. 14. The legislature had a rational basis for distinguishing between the legally incompetent and parties who are permitted tolling: foreign object plaintiffs, unrepresented estates, and contribution plaintiffs. Deen v. Egleston, 597 F.3d 1223, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 4172 (11th Cir. 2010).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Limitation of Actions, § 241, 242. ALR. Statutes of limitations or laches as bar to suit by heirs or next of kin to set aside conveyance or transfer by ancestor, 2 A.L.R. 447. Suspension of contestable period of incontestable clause of life insurance policy pending appointment of personal representative of insured or of beneficiary, 157 A.L.R. 1204. Running of statute of limitations as affected by doctrine of relation back of appointment of administrator, 3 A.L.R.3d 1234.

Statute of limitations: effect of delay in appointing administrator or other representative on cause of action accruing at or after death of person in whose favor it would have accrued, 28 A.L.R.3d 1141. Tolling or interruption of running of statute of limitations pending appointment of executor or administrator for tortfeasor in personal injury or death action, 47 A.L.R.3d 179. Claims for expenses of last sickness or for funeral expenses as within contemplation of statute requiring presentation of claims against decedent’s estate, or limiting time for bringing action thereon, 17 A.L.R.4th 530.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Maloof, 698 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010).
Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth. v. Maloof, 698 S.E.2d 1 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 32× “The trial court denied MARTA’s motion for summary judgment, finding that OCGA § 9-3-92 tolled the statute of limitation.”
Simmons v. Sonyika, 614 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. 2005). · cites it 10× “On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit certified the following question: “Will Georgia law allow the unrepresented estate statute, OCGA § 9-3-92, to toll the ultimate statute of repose in medical malpractice actions, OCGA § 9-3-71 (b), by the…”
Deen v. Stevens, 698 S.E.2d 321 (Ga. 2010). · cites it 12× “Deen points in particular to the tolling provisions for unrepresented estates, see OCGA § 9-3-92, [1] and foreign objects left in the body, see OCGA §§ 9-3-72, 9-3-73(e).”
Legum v. Crouch, 430 S.E.2d 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 20× “Assuming without deciding that the statute of limitation applicable to every medical malpractice claim averred on behalf of the estate normally would have expired within ten days of the filing of the complaint, the question remains whether in the case at bar the statute of…”
Walden v. John D. Archbold Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 398 S.E.2d 271 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 16× “This is not to say, however, that the trial court did not err by holding that appellants in any representative capacity they might assume are barred from asserting the claims personal to Anderson because the statute of limitation had run prior to the appointment of an…”
Kitchens v. Brusman, 633 S.E.2d 585 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “But suit was not filed until October 2002, over two years after her 1999 symptoms developed.”
Lathan v. Hosp. Auth. of Charlton Cnty.., 805 S.E.2d 450 (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “See OCGA § 9-3-92 ("The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate .”
Golden v. Floyd Healthcare Mgmt., Inc, 904 S.E.2d 359 (Ga. 2024). · cites it 8× “In Simmons, the issue was whether OCGA § 9-3-92, which provides that the “time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate .”
Goodman v. Satilla Health Servs., Inc., 658 S.E.2d 792 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 6× “” However, Goodman correctly points out that the tolling provision of OCGA § 9-3-92 also applies in this case. This tolling provision provides that the time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon her estate shall not be counted against her…”
Wilson v. Tara Ford, Inc., 406 S.E.2d 807 (Ga. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 12× “Wilson’s decedent died on January 6, 1986, and it is agreed that as to claims on behalf of the decedent, the statute of limitation was tolled by the provisions of OCGA § 9-3-92 until January 17, 1986 (11 days later), when Wilson was appointed the legal representative of the…”
Hayes Et Al. v. Hines Et Al., 821 S.E.2d 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 12× “Appellant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in granting Appellees' motion for partial *54 summary judgment because (1) the trial court erred in holding that Appellant could not show a "new injury" exception to the two-year statute of limitation established by OCGA §…”
Simmons v. Sonyika, 394 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “§ 9-3-71(b), is extended by Georgia’s unrepresented estate statute, O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92. Plaintiff Sharon Simmons, as administrator of the estate of Trina Elliott, appeals the order of the district court granting a motion to dismiss in favor of the United States, Dr.”
Dowling v. Lopez, 440 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “623 (3) ( 434 SE2d 161 ), the statute of limitation as to the survival action expired on December 6, 1990, two years after the alleged medical malpractice plus 288 days allowed by tolling of the statute of limitation between the decedent's death on April 24, 1988, and…”
Jensen v. Engler, 733 S.E.2d 52 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-3-92 (tolling the statute of limitation from the date of death until the commencement of representation upon the decedent’s estate, provided that such time shall not exceed five years).”
Bd. of Regents v. Oglesby, 591 S.E.2d 417 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-3-92. (b) Oglesby’s claims based on MCG’s possession and handling of her mother’s body that arise from her personal, quasi-property right in her mother’s body to ensure its proper handling and burial, however, are subject to the four-year period of limitations in…”
Howell v. Bates as Tr. of Anne S. Florance Revocable Trust, 830 S.E.2d 250 (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See OCGA § 9-3-92 ("The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate or between the termination of one administration and the commencement of another shall not be counted against his estate in calculating any limitation applicable to…”
Simmons v. United States, 225 F.R.D. 688 (N.D. Ga. 2004). · cites it 10× “Plaintiffs sole argument in opposition to defendants’ statute of repose defense is that the tolling provision applicable to an unrepresented estate under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92, which is clearly applicable in calculating the statute of limitations, is also applicable in calculating…”
Camps v. City of Warner Robins, 822 F. Supp. 724 (M.D. Ga. 1993). · cites it 4× “Under O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92: The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate .”
Dunn v. Towle, 317 S.E.2d 266 (Ga. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “on September 2, 1980, would have succeeded to the still viable cause of action for conversion, assuming that such existed, as appellee contends it did. Because the estate was technically unrepresented between the date of Mrs.”
Walter Robinson v. the Est. of Walter Jester, 775 S.E.2d 569 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “The two-year statute of limitation for Robinson’s and Mayes’ personal injury actions, OCGA § 9-3-33, was tolled between Jester’s death and the appointment of the estate administrator, OCGA § 9-3-92. It therefore expired on June 25, 2012.”
Miller v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 1180 (N.D. Ga. 1983). · cites it 2× “O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92. Although a temporary administratrix may file an action for the collection of debts owed the decedent, O.”
Deen v. Egleston, 601 F. Supp. 2d 1331 (S.D. Ga. 2009). · cites it 2× “Further, there is no rational basis for the distinction between estate claims and personal injury claims arising from medical malpractice. Georgia law provides that the statute of limitations is tolled from the time of an individual’s death until an executor or administrator is…”
Bryant v. Browning, 576 S.E.2d 925 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “866, 867-868 (2) ( 274 SE2d 38 ) (1980) (since the right of action is vested in either a statutory designated individual or the administrator for the benefit of the next of kin, then the absence of a legal representative does not toll the statute of limitation from running under…”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pace, 337 S.E.2d 401 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “In response, appellees argue that the contract limitation period was tolled by the application of OCGA § 9-3-92 which states that “[t]he time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate or between the termination of one administration and…”
Sharon Simmons v. United States, 421 F.3d 1199 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “§ 9 — 3—71(b) (Georgia’s five year statute of repose for medical malpractice actions) is extended by O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 (Georgia’s unrepresented estate statute).”
Walker v. Montclaire Hous. Partners, 736 F. Supp. 1358 (M.D.N.C. 1990). “§ 10-5-14(c) (effective until April 1, 1989); O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 (1989). Without clear direction from a North Carolina court on this issue, this court refuses to read N.”
Rowland v. Clarke Cnty. Sch. Dist., 532 S.E.2d 91 (Ga. 2000). · cites it 2× “OCGA § 9-3-92 (statute of limitation for an estate is tolled during the time between the testatrix’s death and the time a representative is appointed for the estate).”
Dollar v. Monsanto Co. (S.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 11× “Dollar’s estate until after the five-year tolling period contained in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 had expired. Id. at 2. A.”
Mcclinton v. Berry (M.D. Ga. 2024). · cites it 11× “The plaintiffs argue that the statute of limitations for their wrongful death claim is tolled by both O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-92 (tolling for unrepresented estates) and 9-3-99 (tolling for crime victims), rendering their claim timely.”
Jennifer Walker v. Georgia Dep't of Human Servs. (Ga. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 11× “However, as explained below, Plaintiffs’ first claim rests on a false premise, and their second claim fails because OCGA § 9-3-92 does not apply to ante litem notice requirements.”
Hameed Somani v. Zachary Albert Brendle Cannon (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 9× “They contend that the tolling of the statute of limitation under OCGA § 9-3-92 ended when the 2015 Action was filed and that the deadline to file 6 suit therefore expired two years later in October 2017.”
CHAVERRA v. United States (M.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 8× “In support of their argument that the statute of limitations was tolled, Plaintiffs rely upon O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92, which tolls the statute of limitations for unrepresented estates in Georgia until an administrator is appointed.”
Lylah Carroll, as Adm'r for the Est. of Byron Tyrone Carroll v. Piedmont Med. Care Corp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 6× “See OCGA § 9-3-92 (“The time between the death of a person and the commencement of representation upon his estate .”
Moore (M.D. Ga. 2026). · cites it 5× “First, Plaintiff argues that O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 tolls all actions against the estate until the estate is established.”
Faleshia Lathan as Surviving Spouse of Robert Lathan, Sr. v. Hosp. Auth. of Charlton Cnty. D/B/A Charlton Mem'l Hosp. (Ga. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “had been filed after the limitation period had expired on the wrongful death claims, and it argued that the current suit could not be treated as a renewal of the original suit because service had not been properly perfected on the Hospital Authority in the original suit before 3…”
Byrd v. Davis (M.D. Ga. 2023). · cites it 2×
Dunson v. Sampson (M.D. Ga. 2023). · cites it 2×
Preston v. Hall (S.D. Ga. 2020). · cites it 2× “§ 9-3-91; (3) an estate becomes unrepresented, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-92, 9-3-93; (4) the defendant is absent from the State, O.”
Dollar v. Monsanto Co. (S.D. Ga. 2021). · cites it 2× “Dollar’s estate until after the five-year tolling period contained in O.C.G.A. § 9-3-92 had expired. Id. at 2. The Court granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss to the extent Plaintiff seeks damages for wrongful death on behalf of Mr.”
Green (S.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 9-3-91; (3) an estate becomes unrepresented, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-92, 9-3- 93; (4) the defendant is absent from the State, O.”
Emily Howell v. Philip A. Bates, as Tr. of the Anne S. Florance Revocable Trust (Ga. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “As shown above, the Trust provided that, if a person “contest[ed] or initiate[d] legal proceedings” either to challenge the validity of the Trust, the Will, or of any provision in either document, or “to prevent any provision in either document from being carried out in…”
Green (S.D. Ga. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 9-3-91; (3) an estate becomes unrepresented, O.C.G.A. §§ 9-3-92, 9-3- 93; (4) the defendant is absent from the State, O.”
Kevin Jensen v. Yong Engler (Ga. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2×
Leader Nat'l Ins. v. Penson, 336 S.E.2d 595 (Ga. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2×
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.