Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Nevada, Inc. v. Triex Texas Holdings, LLC, and Bryan Weiner, 659 S.W.3d 456

In 2008 Triex bought a gas station in Lubbock; Marcus & Millichap acted as broker for both buyer (Triex) and seller (Hamilton Holdings) and recommended dual representation.
Triex leased the station back to Taylor Petroleum under a 20-year lease; Taylor Petroleum defaulted on the lease on December 1, 2012.
Triex sued Taylor and related parties in February 2016 (breach, fraud, related torts); depositions in February 2017 prompted suspicion that Marcus & Millichap misrepresented the sale and valuation.
Triex added Marcus & Millichap as a defendant in March 2017 (claims: breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by nondisclosure, and conspiracy), beyond the four-year limitations period from the 2007–2008 transaction.
The trial court granted summary judgment dismissing Triex’s claims as time-barred; the court of appeals reversed as to the fiduciary-duty claim under the discovery rule, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated the trial-court judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim accrue under the discovery rule?	Discovery rule defers accrual until Triex learned Marcus & Millichap caused the injury (no duty to exercise diligence).	Accrual occurred when Triex knew of the injury (Dec. 1, 2012); discovery rule still requires reasonable diligence to defer accrual.	The discovery rule applies but requires reasonable diligence; accrual was not deferred until Triex learned the specific actor—limitations barred the claim.
Do fraud and conspiracy claims avoid limitations by the discovery rule?	Fraud-based discovery rule delays accrual until discovery of fraud; Triex argued it did not discover Marcus & Millichap’s role until 2017.	Same limitations analysis as fiduciary claim: reasonable diligence required; plaintiff knew facts in 2012 that would prompt inquiry.	Fraud and conspiracy claims are time-barred for the same reasons as fiduciary claim.
Could alleged post-breach concealment or misleading statements toll limitations (fraudulent concealment)?	Marcus & Millichap actively misled Triex into blaming Taylor, so concealment tolled limitations.	Triex did not plead or prove fraudulent concealment; the summary-judgment record does not show active concealment sufficient to raise a fact issue.	Plaintiff did not plead or produce evidence of fraudulent concealment; even if it applied, tolling ends when facts would prompt a reasonably prudent person to inquire.

Berry v. Berry, 646 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. 2022) (discovery rule defers accrual until claimant knew or should have known of wrongful injury through reasonable diligence).
Comput. Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (fiduciary context can make injury inherently undiscoverable; distinguishes discovery rule from fraudulent concealment).
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (general accrual rule: claim accrues when wrongful conduct causes legal injury; discovery rule defers accrual for inherently undiscoverable injuries).
Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1997) (discovery rule requires reasonable diligence to trigger accrual).
Draughon v. Johnson, 631 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. 2021) (defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations must negate the discovery rule or its application).
PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Hous. Ctrs. Partners Ltd. P’ship, 146 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2004) (discovery rule does not wait until plaintiff knows specific causes or cures).
KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (plaintiff need not know exact nature of each wrongful act or identity of wrongdoer for accrual to begin).
Valdez v. Hollenbeck, 465 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2015) (fraudulent concealment tolling ends when a reasonably prudent person would inquire; knowledge of such facts equals knowledge of the cause of action).
Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. 1983) (fraudulent concealment can estop defendant from asserting limitations).