 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Allen v. Columbus Bank & Trust Co.5/31/2000
tate assets of the trust, but she "convinced him everything was okay." Again, Allen has failed to cite any evidence in the record showing that CB&T;made any false or intentionally misleading statements which had the effect of deterring her from filing a lawsuit.
We find the record devoid of any evidence of concealment or actual fraud on the part of CB&T;which deterred or debarred Allen from discovering the acts which are the basis of this action and which would have tolled the statute of limitation. Fraud cannot consist of mere broken promises, expressions of opinion, unfulfilled predictions or erroneous conjecture as to future events. As we pointed out in our summary of the facts, Allen not only admits that she received regular statements showing all the activities of the trust and that she did not read those statements, she acknowledged that the information contained in those very statements shows the mismanagement she alleges. A trust beneficiary cannot "put it on the back burner," "shove[ ] the statements in a drawer," sit on her rights, and then hope to bring a lawsuit clearly outside the statute of limitation period. Thus, the trial court did not err in granting CB&T;s motion for summary judgment.
2. Allen contends the trial court erred in striking certain opinions made by her forensic accountant in a one-page letter dated November 13, 1997. In the letter, the accountant states that a letter written by Herin-Stag at CB&T;"may be fraudulent." The accountant suggests that "perhaps" Herin-Stag was trying to prevent Allen's husband from being involved in the trust "so that he would not be able to detect her lies and mismanagement." The accountant concludes the letter: "I think that this information could very well impact the statute of limitations."
The trial court held that the accountant's opinions in the letter concerning fraud should be stricken. Because the accountant's conclusions that certain acts "may" have amounted to fraud are legal conclusions for which he cannot give an expert opinion, we agree.
It is well established that an expert witness may not state a legal conclusion as to the ultimate issue. In a motion for summary judgment based on the statute of limitation, the ultimate issue to be decided is whether the statute is tolled because of fraud. Thus, the accountant's opinions that Herin-Stag's September 1980 letter "may be fraudulent" are not a proper basis for expert testimony. Moreover, the accountant's conclusions regarding the possible fraud and the reasons for any possible fraud are not supported by any evidence in the record and amount to nothing more than conjecture, which is not a sufficient basis for an expert's opinion. The trial court did not err is striking the accountant's opinions in this letter concerning fraud.
Judgment affirmed. Miller, J., and McMurray, Senior Appellate Judge, concur. Phipps, J., disqualified.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Georgia Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|