are subject to a one-year statute of limitations. Section 6-2-39, Code of 1975. Although the statute does not begin to run until the fraud is discovered, § 6-2-3, “[fjraud is deemed to have been discovered when it ought to have been discovered. It is sufficient to begin the running of the statute of limitations that facts were known which would put a reasonable mind on notice that facts to support a claim of fraud might be discovered upon inquiry. Jefferson County Truck Growers Association v. Tanner, 341 So.2d 485, 488 (Ala. 1977) (emphasis added). Generally, the question of when a plaintiff discovered an alleged fraud is a question for the jury and is therefore not a proper matter for directed verdict. Cf. Papastefan v. B & L Construction Co., Inc. of Mobile, 356 So.2d 158 (Ala.1978) (<HOLDING>). However, even matters which are usually
holding that an unsworn letter is not proper summary judgment proof holding that plaintiffs right to argue a need for discovery prior to the entry of summary judgment was preserved since plaintiff moved to vacate summary judgment ten days later and included precisely the discovery needed and not generalized statements of necessary discovery holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that a plaintiff has a duty to plead the date of discovery of fraud where the alleged fraud apparently occurred at a remote time holding that the time of discovery of fraud is not a proper matter for summary judgment