If the defendant or those under whom he claims are guilty of a fraud by which the plaintiff has been debarred or deterred from bringing an action, the period of limitation shall run only from the time of the plaintiff’s discovery of the fraud.
§ 9-3-96.Tolling of limitations for fraud of defendant
Chapter 3. Limitations of Actions · Article 5. Tolling of Limitations · Last amended 1933 · Last verified July 17, 2026
In one sentenceO.C.G.A. § 9-3-96 delays the start of the limitations period whenever the defendant, or someone the defendant claims through, commits fraud that debars or deters the plaintiff from suing, so the clock begins running only once the plaintiff discovers that fraud rather than on the ordinary accrual date.
Full Text of § 9-3-96
Plain-English Summary
Fraud that hides a wrong from its victim gets special treatment. If a defendant — or someone the defendant claims through, such as a predecessor who transferred an interest — commits fraud that keeps the plaintiff from bringing an action, the limitations period does not begin on the usual accrual date. It begins only when the plaintiff discovers the fraud.
The fraud has to do real work: it must be the reason the plaintiff was “debarred or deterred” from suing, not an unrelated wrong that happens to accompany the claim. A defendant who conceals the existence of a claim, or misleads a plaintiff into believing no claim exists, cannot then use the passage of time that concealment caused as a shield.
This rule protects plaintiffs who, through no fault of their own, had no opportunity to learn their rights had been violated. It also removes any incentive for a defendant to hide wrongdoing, since the years spent hiding it cannot be banked toward a limitations defense.
Frequently Asked Questions
When does the limitations period start running if a defendant committed fraud that hid the claim?
It runs “only from the time of the plaintiff’s discovery of the fraud,” not from the original accrual date.
Does the fraud have to be committed by the defendant personally?
No. The statute also covers fraud by “those under whom he claims,” meaning predecessors in interest to the defendant.
What must the fraud have done to trigger this tolling?
It must be fraud “by which the plaintiff has been debarred or deterred from bringing an action.”
What must the plaintiff discover for the clock to start — the fraud itself or the underlying injury?
The statute ties the restart to “discovery of the fraud” specifically.
Does O.C.G.A. § 9-3-97.1 provide a fraud-based tolling rule for medical malpractice claims?
No. O.C.G.A. § 9-3-97.1 is a separate, distinct tolling mechanism tied to requests for medical records — certified mail, a 21-day response window, and prompt payment of fees — unconnected to fraud or concealment.
Amendment History
Ga. L. 1855-56, p. 233, § 30; Code 1863, § 2872; Code 1868, § 2880; Code 1873, § 2931; Code 1882, § 2931; Civil Code 1895, § 3785; Civil Code 1910, § 4380; Code 1933, § 3-807.
Source & verification. Section text and amendment history are
reproduced verbatim from the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, published by the
Official Code of Georgia Annotated, Georgia Code Revision Commission / LexisNexis. Last verified July 17, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: georgia fraudulent concealment tolling statute of limitationsgeorgia discovery of fraud statute of limitationsfraud tolls statute of limitations georgiageorgia defendant fraud debarred plaintiff