Sergio Alanis, Sr. and Maria Guadalupe Alanis v. Ana Lisa Garza
04-15-00712-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 12, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Sergio Alanis, Sr. alleges Alvarez (his former attorney) obtained a warranty deed conveying ~48.48 acres (deed signed Feb. 5, recorded Feb. 12, 1998) by fraud and breach of fiduciary duty; Alvarez later conveyed the property to intervenor Ana Lisa Garza.
- Alanis filed multiple pleadings: an initial federal filing (July 2000 dismissed), a short state "motion for recovery" (Dec. 18, 2000), and an amended complaint asserting breach of fiduciary duty and fraud (Feb. 15, 2002); Alvarez was served Feb. 25, 2002.
- Alvarez and Garza moved for summary judgment claiming the four‑year statute of limitations barred Alanis’s claims (accrual tied to the 1998 deed or, alternatively, Alanis’s failure to diligently effect service after the Dec. 2000 filing).
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants (2012); the Fourth Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in October 2013 because movants did not conclusively negate the discovery rule; later proceedings included a second MSJ by Garza and a 2015 interlocutory order granting that MSJ in the trial court.
- Central legal factual dispute: Alanis asserts he did not discover the conveyance (and defendants’ alleged concealment) until Dec. 1, 1999, invoking the discovery rule to defer accrual; defendants relied on recorded deed notice and delay in service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alanis’s fraud and fiduciary‑duty claims are time‑barred under the 4‑year limitations period (accrual date) | Alanis says accrual was deferred by the discovery rule because he did not discover the deed/concealment until Dec. 1, 1999 | Defendants say accrual occurred no later than Feb. 12, 1998 (recording) so claims filed in 2002 are untimely | Court: Movants failed to negate the discovery rule; summary judgment on limitations was improper — reverse and remand (Oct. 9, 2013) |
| If Dec. 18, 2000 filing is timely, whether plaintiff used due diligence to obtain service so filing relates back | Alanis contends he exercised necessary diligence or that discovery rule controls | Defendants contend plaintiff did not diligently obtain service (service occurred Feb. 25, 2002), so filing does not toll limitations | Court: Defendants bore burden to negate discovery rule and did not do so; appellate court did not resolve diligence issue on merits and remanded |
| Whether recorded deed (and Property Code notice) conclusively started the limitations period | Defendants rely on recording statutes to show actual/constructive notice as of recording | Alanis alleges fraudulent concealment and lack of actual notice until discovery in 1999 | Court: Because defendants did not conclusively disprove application of the discovery rule/fraudulent concealment, they were not entitled to summary judgment on this basis |
| Whether intervenor (Garza) is entitled to summary judgment on same limitations defense after appellate remand | Alanis says the second motion repeats arguments already rejected by the appellate court and cannot bar his claims | Garza reasserted the limitations defense and argued plaintiff’s claims against an intervenor are likewise time‑barred | Trial court later granted Garza’s second MSJ (interlocutory order Oct. 21, 2015), but the Fourth Court of Appeals’ 2013 opinion required remand because defendants had not negated the discovery rule |
Key Cases Cited
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (movant for summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish accrual and negate the discovery rule)
- Gant v. De Leon, 786 S.W.2d 259 (Tex. 1990) (relation‑back/serving process: filing alone does not toll limitations absent due diligence in service)
- Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (defendant who conclusively proves an affirmative defense is entitled to summary judgment)
- Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) (standards for discovery rule; accrual deferred until plaintiff knew or should have known of injury)
- S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (fraudulent concealment and discovery rule doctrines)
- Computer Associates Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (analysis of inherently undiscoverable injuries and discovery rule)
- Park Place Hosp. v. Estate of Milo, 909 S.W.2d 508 (Tex. 1995) (affirmative defenses and summary judgment principles)