the Willard Law Firm, L.P. v. John Sewell, 464 S.W.3d 747

Sewell hired The Williard Law Firm in February 2007 to pursue recovery of his foreclosed Surratt Property; the contingency agreement provided Williard a 50% contingent fee in property or proceeds.
Settlement with defendant Panola (July 2007) returned the property to Sewell and paid cash; September 6, 2007 transactions included split cash, warranty deeds transferring a 50% interest, a deed of trust, and a $28,951.60 promissory note from Sewell to Williard.
Sewell made a first payment of $300 on the promissory note on October 11, 2007 and continued payments through March 2011; Williard foreclosed in December 2010.
Sewell sued Williard on April 2, 2012 alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other claims; Williard pleaded the four-year statute of limitations and relied on the discovery rule.
The jury found Williard breached fiduciary duties, Sewell was injured before April 2, 2008, Sewell was damaged $28,951.60, Sewell and Williard were 50/50 responsible for damages, and that Sewell should have discovered the breach by October 11, 2007.
Trial court granted Sewell’s JNOV, disregarded the jury’s discovery-date finding, and rendered judgment for Sewell; the court of appeals reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Williard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly granted JNOV disregarding the jury's finding on when Sewell should have discovered the breach (discovery-rule accrual)	Sewell: evidence conclusively established he did not and could not discover the breach until he consulted new counsel on April 1, 2011, so JNOV was proper	Williard: jury’s finding that Sewell should have discovered the breach by Oct. 11, 2007 is supported by evidence (payment receipt, testimony) and defeats Sewell’s timeliness claim	Court: Reversed trial court; evidence legally sufficient to support jury’s Oct. 11, 2007 discovery finding, so Sewell’s suit was time-barred; render take-nothing judgment for Williard

Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (articulates the discovery rule for accrual of actions)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for reviewing legal sufficiency of evidence)
Tanner v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 289 S.W.3d 828 (Tex. 2009) (legal-sufficiency review for JNOV)
Brown v. Bank of Galveston, 963 S.W.2d 511 (Tex. 1998) (trial court may disregard jury finding only when no evidence supports it)
Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998) (discovery-date usually a jury question)
Murphy v. Campbell, 964 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. 1997) (claim accrues when plaintiff knows or should know of wrongful act and injury)
Trousdale v. Henry, 261 S.W.3d 221 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (four-year limitations for breach of fiduciary duty)