Kassandra Mead v. Property Owners' Association of Terlingua Ranch, Inc., Fred Porter, Sara Staton and Alida Lorio Rich
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 9840
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Mead was criminally charged with felony deadly conduct; the district attorney moved to dismiss and the trial court dismissed the charge and discharged Mead on June 11, 2008.
- Mead filed suit for malicious criminal prosecution on December 2, 2010; she alleged appellees had falsely procured the prosecution on December 4, 2006.
- Mead amended to pursue only malicious prosecution and argued her cause of action did not accrue until December 4, 2009 (the expiration of the three‑year statute of limitations on the underlying felony), so her December 2010 suit was timely.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment, asserting the one‑year statute of limitations for malicious prosecution began to run when the criminal charges were dismissed in June 2008 and therefore Mead’s suit was time‑barred.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for appellees; Mead appealed, arguing the dismissal type determined whether accrual occurred at dismissal or at expiration of the underlying statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does a malicious‑prosecution claim accrue for limitations purposes? | Mead: accrual did not occur until the underlying felony’s 3‑year limitations expired (Dec. 4, 2009), because dismissal was not of a type requiring de novo proceedings to revive the case. | Appellees: accrual occurs when the criminal prosecution is dismissed, even if it could be refiled; thus limitations began on June 11, 2008. | Court held accrual occurred on dismissal (June 11, 2008); Mead’s suit filed in Dec. 2010 was time‑barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frost Nat. Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494 (Tex. 2010) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (defendant must conclusively prove accrual and negate discovery rule when asserting limitations)
- Leal v. American Nat’l Ins. Co., 928 S.W.2d 592 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1996) (malicious‑prosecution claim accrues when formal proceedings are terminated and prosecutor must institute de novo proceedings to proceed further)
- Lang v. City of Nacogdoches, 942 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1997) (dismissal is a matter of public record; malicious‑prosecution accrual upon dismissal)
- Torres v. GSC Enterprises, Inc., 242 S.W.3d 553 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2007) (elements and accrual rule for malicious prosecution)