Court Opinion

ID: 9566035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:32:16.39331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:18.337329
License: Public Domain

Carley, Judge,
dissenting.
Contrary to the holding in Division 2 of the majority’s opinion, I believe that this action was barred by the statute of limitations. My review of the record reveals nothing to support the conclusion on pages 5 and 6 of the majority opinion that “there is conflicting evidence as to the decedent’s mental acuity.” Even if such evidence existed, it would be relevant for tolling the statute based upon mental incapacity pursuant to OCGA § 9-3-90 and would not relate to the existence or nonexistence of fraud. In the instant case, as in Troup v. Troup, 248 Ga. 662 (285 SE2d 19) (1981), appellee did not contend *490that decedent “lacked sufficient mental capacity to act in her own behalf without the appointment of a guardian or guardian ad litem.” Troup v. Troup, supra, 664.
My further review of the record indicates no evidence of undue influence, misplaced trust and competence or affirmative misrepresentation on appellant’s part. The certificate of deposit was in both names and the stocks were transferred with appellant’s signature. The savings account was closed pursuant to a valid power of attorney. While this may have been done to “defraud” the government so as to qualify decedent for medicare benefits, there is nothing to indicate that it was done without the decedent’s knowledge or approval. The fact that the decedent’s assets were “concealed” from the government or from appellee is of no significance so long as they were not concealed from the decedent herself.
I agree that under certain circumstances, fraud will toll the statute of limitations. However, I do not believe those circumstances were shown here and it is clear that merely alleging fraud is not sufficient to toll the statute. The burden of proof in this connection was on the appellee. Bates v. Metro. Transit System, 128 Ga. App. 720 (197 SE2d 781) (1973). Based on the record before us, I believe that the defense raising the statute of limitations was, as a matter of law, a valid one and the trial court erred failing to so rule. Troup v. Troup, supra. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge Quillian, Judge Sognier and Judge Pope join in this dissent.