Collective Asset Partners LLC v. Christopher Lance McDade
400 S.W.3d 213
Tex. App.2013Background
- CAP formed in 2006-07 as asset management venture led by Patten and Peters.
- Schaumburg identified a 13.88-acre Fort Worth property; McDade appraised it at $10,250,000 for Legend Bank in June 2007.
- CAP signed loan documents with Legend Bank for ~$5.2 million; Patten signed flood-hazard notices indicating Zone AE and flood risk.
- In 2009 CAP learned substantial land portions were in a 100-year flood plain; Legend Bank foreclosed in August 2009 after another appraisal by McDade.
- CAP sued Schaumburg, Legend Bank, McDade, and others for negligence and related claims; trial court granted McDade traditional summary judgment; CAP’s remaining claims against McDade were narrowed and appealed.
- Court affirmed summary judgment, holding limitations accrual occurred at purchase and tolling did not save the claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty in negligent misrepresentation | CAP asserts McDade owed duty to CAP | McDade disputes duty or its scope | Not decided on record |
| Effect of disclaimers on CAP’s claim | Disclaimers do not bar misrepresentation | Disclaimers may vitiate claims | Not decided on record |
| Reasonable reliance and damages | CAP relied on McDade’s appraisal | Reliance was not reasonable or damages absent | Not decided on record |
| Limitations and discovery rule | Limitations tolled until May 2009 | ACcrual occurred at purchase, discovery not tolled | Limitations accrual at purchase; grant of summary judgment affirmed; CAP’s limitations argument overruled only insofar as this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Zimmerhanzel v. Green, 346 S.W.3d 721 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011, pet. denied) (discovery-rule considerations for limitations in flood-hazard cases; notice issues)
- Haïdar v. Nortex Foundation Designs, Inc., 239 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007, no pet.) (knowledge of facts equivalent to knowledge of cause of action for limitations)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (movant must prove accrual and negate discovery rule as a matter of law)
- Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (discovery rule applicability and accrual standards)
- Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. 2011) (limited discovery-rule and accrual concepts for negligent misrepresentation)
- In re Lyon Fin. Serv., Inc., 257 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. 2008) (contract-signing knowledge; duties to protect by reading documents)
- Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247 (Tex. 1962) (signatories presumed to know contents of documents signed)
- Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood, 58 S.W.3d 732 (Tex. 2001) (discovery-rule applicability as a narrow exception)