Elwyn D. Shumway v. Whispering Hills of Comal County Texas Property Owners Association, Inc., 03-15-00513-CV

Background

Plaintiff Elwyn D. Shumway owns two lots in Whispering Hills; deed restrictions generally limit lots to residential use except those "designated for business."
Plaintiff alleges developer intent and documentary evidence show lots 1–8 were sold/marketed as allowing business use; he obtained two developer-related letters (one from a salesman and one from the developer) and on November 13, 2014 asked the HOA to acknowledge commercial use for those lots.
The HOA denied the request and on January 14, 2015 filed a dedicatory instrument/policy resolution declaring all lots limited to single-family residential use.
Plaintiff sued for declaratory relief (promissory estoppel theory) on February 10, 2015 (amended petitions followed). The HOA moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a, arguing the claim was barred by the four-year limitations period.
The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the case as a matter of law on statute-of-limitations grounds and awarded attorney’s fees to the HOA. Plaintiff appeals, arguing the accrual date occurred within four years before suit (when the HOA filed the dedicatory instrument) and that the HOA failed to conclusively prove accrual began earlier.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held (trial court)
When did an "actual controversy" arise for declaratory relief?	Shumway: no actual controversy existed until HOA denied his written request and filed the dedicatory instrument (Dec 2014–Jan 2015).	HOA: the dispute existed earlier (e.g., salesman letter dated July 7, 2010 evidencing a disagreement).	Court: treated limitations as having run based on earlier date — dismissed.
When did plaintiff first have authority/opportunity to sue (accrual notice)?	Shumway: he lacked documentary support until he obtained developer letters (not earlier than Jan 25, 2012) and thus had no basis to sue before that; accrual tolled until he had those documents.	HOA: plaintiff and HOA disputed use for years; plaintiff knew lots lacked plat designations long before suit.	Court: concluded accrual occurred earlier; dismissed.
Did defendant conclusively prove the date the 4-year limitations period began?	Shumway: under Texas law a movant on limitations must conclusively prove accrual date; HOA did not meet that burden because key documentary events occurred within four years of suit (esp. HOA's Jan 14, 2015 filing).	HOA: argued plaintiff’s complaints and the factual dispute predated the limitations period (citing earlier correspondence).	Court: found HOA proved limitations bar and dismissed.
Was dismissal under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a appropriate (no basis in law/fact)?	Shumway: 91a ruling improperly resolved disputed factual matters (accrual, credibility, hearsay admissibility) and did not consider dispositive documentary and adopted-explanation evidence; dismissal therefore erroneous.	HOA: motion argued cause of action lacked basis because limitations had run.	Court: granted 91a dismissal as matter of law.

Key Cases Cited

Shaw v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2001) (defendant asserting limitations must conclusively prove accrual date to prevail on pretrial dismissal)
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 748 (Tex. 1999) (limitations defense requires proof of accrual date as a matter of law when movant seeks dismissal)
Villarreal v. Wells Fargo Brokerage Servs., LLC, 315 S.W.3d 109 (Tex. App.) (discussing accrual and the need to identify the date a cause of action accrued)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (accrual rules: claim accrues when facts authorize judicial relief)
Diversicare Gen. Partners, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. 2005) (plaintiff must adduce proof avoiding limitations once movant proves limitations defense)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (legal-injury rule: cause accrues when wrongful act causes some legal injury)