Brian DeRoeck, Melinda Young, and Kathryn Boykin, as Co-Trustees of the Walter A. DeRoeck QTIP Trust, Assignee of Texas Capital Bank National Association v. DHM Ventures, LLC James W. Moritz And Nathan W. Halsey
03-15-00713-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- DHM signed a revolving promissory note (max $8.5M) that matured on October 17, 2009; Moritz and Halsey signed personal guaranties. The Note was assigned to the Trust. DHM made interest payments through December 2013 then stopped.
- The Trust sued on July 18, 2014 for suit on debt, breach of contract, and foreclosure. Defendants asserted limitations as an affirmative defense.
- The Trust initially argued a six‑year limitations period; Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting a four‑year limitations period barred the claims.
- The Trust amended its petition to allege written acknowledgments (emails/payments) by Defendants after maturity and within four years, but pled those allegations only as an avoidance of the limitations defense, not as an independent cause of action based on a new promise.
- The trial court granted final summary judgment for the Defendants; the Trust appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants' post‑maturity acknowledgments revived time‑barred debt by creating a new cause of action | Acknowledgments (payments/emails) within four years revived the claim and avoided the four‑year statute | The original debt action was time‑barred; any acknowledgment must be pleaded as a new cause of action | Held for Defendants: Acknowledgments were pled only to defeat limitations on the original claim, not as a new, independently pleaded promise, so claims are barred |
| Whether acknowledgment revived foreclosure claims | Acknowledgment doctrine likewise revives foreclosure rights | Foreclosure claims are derivative of the debt and subject to same limitations unless a new promise is pleaded | Held for Defendants: foreclosure claims time‑barred for same reason (no pleaded new promise) |
| Whether guarantors (Moritz, Halsey) are liable because acknowledgment applied to guaranteed debt | Acknowledgments by guarantors saved claims against them | Guarantors argued limitations bar applies and Trust did not plead a new promise against guarantors | Held for Defendants: Trust failed to plead a new promise as cause of action against guarantors; summary judgment proper |
| When cause of action against guarantors accrued (demand issue) | Trust contended cause of action accrued only upon demand made May 12, 2014 (within four years) | Defendants: guaranty required immediate payment at maturity; demand irrelevant; Trust also failed to timely demand | Held for Defendants: even if demand was condition, Trust unreasonably delayed (no demand within limitations), so claims barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Siegel v. McGavock Drilling Co., 530 S.W.2d 894 (Tex. Civ. App.—Amarillo 1975) (when limitations has run, a written acknowledgment creates a new cause of action that must be pleaded)
- Cain v. Bonner, 194 S.W. 1098 (Tex. 1917) (new promise to pay after limitation constitutes the cause of action and must be declared upon)
- Hanley v. Oil Capital Broad. Ass’n, 171 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. 1943) (plaintiff must plead the new promise in plain and emphatic terms to avoid limitations)
- American Star Energy & Minerals Corp. v. Stowers, 457 S.W.3d 427 (Tex. 2015) (statement of accrual law: cause of action accrues when facts authorize a judicial remedy)
- Stevens v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 929 S.W.2d 665 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1996) (where demand is a condition precedent, it must be made within a reasonable time or the claim is barred)