Tom Tucker v. Carl Bedgood and Laura Bedgood
13-16-00433-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- In 2005 Tucker and Bedgood agreed to jointly develop La Salle Hotel lots; Tucker purchased Lot A-10, the Bedgoods purchased A-9 and A-11.\
- In 2006 buyer Bryan wanted Lot A-9 widened from 60' to 70'; Tucker alleges an oral agreement with Bedgood that Tucker would cede 10' from A-10 and Bedgood would transfer 5' from A-11 to Tucker, and they would split an extra $50,000.\
- The Bryan sale closed in 2006 for $250,000; Tucker received $25,000. Tucker alleges Bedgood never transferred the 5' from A-11.\
- Tucker and the Bedgoods executed a broad mutual release (Settlement) in 2008 resolving other disputes between them. Tucker did not read the Settlement.\
- Tucker sued in 2014 asserting fraud, statutory fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, claiming he only discovered Bedgood’s failure to transfer the 5' in 2014.\
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Bedgoods on limitations grounds; appeal challenges whether discovery rule or fraudulent concealment toll limitations and whether breach-of-contract accrual rule applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tucker’s claims are time-barred under limitations | Tucker: discovery rule and fraudulent concealment (and fiduciary relationship) tolled limitations until 2014 | Bedgood: claims accrued by 2006 (or 2008 at latest) and Tucker failed to exercise reasonable diligence | Held: Defendants conclusively established accrual and lack of diligence; claims time-barred |
| Applicability of discovery rule/fraudulent concealment | Tucker: fiduciary status of Bedgood supports tolling; he did not discover breach until 2014 | Bedgood: Tucker, an experienced realtor, had inquiry notice and access to records/public filings; failed to investigate | Held: Even assuming fiduciary status, Tucker had sufficient inquiry notice or means of discovery; tolling fails |
| Whether the 2008 Settlement prevented accrual earlier | Tucker: Settlement did not reveal the absence of a transfer and he didn’t discover until 2014 | Bedgood: Tucker had constructive/inquiry notice before or by 2008 despite signing Settlement | Held: Accrual no later than 2008; Settlement did not restart limitations and Tucker’s failure to read it undermines diligence claim |
| Special accrual rule for breach of contract (continuing contract) | Tucker: contract accrual deferred until he treated contract as terminated; he treated it as alive until 2014 | Bedgood: This was a discrete, single transaction tied to the 2006 closing, not a long-term continuing contract | Held: Pickett rule inapplicable; contract claim accrued by 2008 at the latest and is time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Shah v. Moss, 67 S.W.3d 836 (Tex. 2001) (defendant bears burden to conclusively establish limitations on traditional summary judgment)\
- KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (accrual and discovery-rule burdens in limitations defense)\
- Computer Assocs. Intern., Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule and fraudulent concealment defer accrual until plaintiff knew or with diligence should have known)\
- Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) (due diligence may include asking contract partner for verifying information; failure to ask is not due diligence)\
- Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry–Helfand, 491 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2016) (general accrual rule: cause accrues when wrongful act causes legal injury)