Bank of the West v. PSMD Medical Associates, P.A., 02-23-00376-CV

In 2015, MDPS Real Estate Holdings LLC and Siva Assisted Living Services executed a $4.95 million note in Bank of the West’s favor, secured by PSMD Medical Associates’ unconditional SBA guarantee.
The last payment on the note was made in July 2018; the Borrowers shortly thereafter entered Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
In December 2018, the Bank formally accelerated the note and made a written demand for payment on both the Borrowers and PSMD.
After foreclosure and sale of the collateral in 2022, a deficiency remained. The Bank demanded payment from PSMD in October 2022 and sued in November 2022 to recover the deficiency.
PSMD asserted a statute-of-limitations defense, arguing the claim accrued upon the Borrowers’ default in 2018, and thus was untimely filed more than four years later.
The trial court granted summary judgment for PSMD; the Bank appealed, asserting its claim was timely given the guarantee’s written demand provision.

Issue	Bank’s Argument	PSMD’s Argument	Held
When did limitations accrue for suit on guarantee?	Accrued upon Bank’s written demand (Dec. 2018) per guarantee’s terms and Wiman precedent.	Accrued when Borrowers defaulted (Aug. 2018); Bank unreasonably delayed demand; unconditional nature waives written demand requirement.	Accrual delayed until written demand made to guarantor in Dec. 2018; suit was timely.
Did guarantee require a written demand for PSMD’s liability?	Yes; agreement explicitly required written demand as condition precedent.	No; unconditional guarantee, coupled with waiver clauses, obviated need for written demand.	Court found written demand provision was not waived—was condition precedent to liability.
Was demand unreasonably delayed, triggering earlier accrual?	No unreasonable delay; demand was simultaneous with acceleration.	Delayed demand between default and written demand (Dec. 2018) was unreasonable.	Court ruled there was no delay: demand coincided with acceleration, so limitations began then.
Was summary judgment evidence on attorney’s fees sufficient?	Sought attorney’s fees by affidavit without detailed time records or breakdown.	Did not contest attorney’s fees as unreasonable or unnecessary.	Evidence insufficient for summary judgment; attorney’s fees remanded for further proceedings.

Murray v. San Jacinto Agency, Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826 (Tex. 1990) (limitations accrue when facts exist authorizing plaintiff to seek judicial remedy)
Hopkins v. First Nat’l Bank at Brownsville, 551 S.W.2d 343 (Tex. 1977) (guarantor of payment primarily liable; no prior action against maker required)
Moreno v. Sterling Drug, 787 S.W.2d 348 (Tex. 1990) (accrual of cause of action is a legal question for the court)
Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (summary judgment standard for affirmative defenses)