Opinion ID: 180149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fraud and Money Had and Received Claims

Text: The Anthonys also argued that the district court erred in dismissing, on statute of limitations grounds, their fraud and money had and received claims. Georgia law provides a four-year statute of limitations on both a claim for fraud, see OCGA § 9-3-31; McKesson Corp. v. Green, 299 Ga.App. 91, 683 S.E.2d 336, 341 n. 21 (2009), and a claim for money had and received, see OCGA § 9-3-25; Baghdady v. Cent. Life Ins. Co., 224 Ga.App. 170, 480 S.E.2d 221, 224 n. 1 (1996). The statute of limitations for a fraud claim begins running when the plaintiff discovers the fraud. See OCGA § 9-3-96. Here, more than five years passed from the time the Anthonys signed the Loan Agreement at issue to the time they brought suit. Nevertheless, the Anthonys argue that equitable tolling should apply 1) because American General committed fraud by contracting for reasonable and necessary notary fees but actually charging notary fees far exceeding the statutory maximum and 2) because American General failed to disclose the statutory maximum to the Anthonys. For tolling to apply, the fraud must be such actual fraud as could not have been discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence. Bahadori v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 270 Ga. 203, 507 S.E.2d 467, 470 (1998). Even assuming, for argument's sake, that American General's conduct constituted actual fraud, the Georgia Supreme Court declined to allow equitable tolling in the Anthonys' circumstance: the Anthonys could have discovered the discrepancy between the notary fee statute and the actual fee charged at any time by simple reference to the notary fee statute. Anthony II at 176. So, the district court did not err by dismissing the Anthonys' fraud and money had and received claims as filed outside the statute of limitations.