Vanderpool v. Vanderpool, 442 S.W.3d 756

Appellants and Barbara Vanderpool dispute distribution of estate assets after Ray Vanderpool’s life estate and Appellants’ remainder interest.
Milton and Beulah Vanderpool’s codicils granted Ray a life estate and Appellants the remainder in the family farm and Krugerrands.
Ray and Barbara conveyed real property (including Ray’s farm interest) to Debra and Jack King, Jr.; a King note payable to Ray and Barbara matured in 2010.
Ray died in 2007; Barbara as executrix did not distribute note proceeds or Krugerrands to Appellants.
Appellants filed suit in 2011 asserting conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, constructive trust, accounting, and later fraud and breach of confidential relationship.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment on several claims; the court’s 2014 opinion reverses in part, affirms in part, and remands for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Limitations on conversion of King note proceeds	Appellants’ conversion claim not barred by two-year limit; genuine facts remain.	Note proceeds accrued by Oct. 3, 2007; constructive notice shown by estate inventory.	Reversed as to conversion of King note proceeds; factual issues remain.
Discovery rule and fiduciary duty for Krugerrands; applicability of discovery rule	Discovery rule should toll limitations due to fiduciary relationship.	No fiduciary relationship; discovery rule inapplicable to Krugerrands.	Discovery rule does not apply; no fiduciary duty; affirmed as to this claim.
Fraudulent concealment on Krugerrands conversion	Fraudulent concealment tolls limitations and bars summary judgment.	No fiduciary relationship and no concealment shown; elements not proven.	Fraudulent concealment does not toll limitations; affirmed.

KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999) (limitations on defense and need for fact issues to toll)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (review of summary judgment standards; standard of review)
Shell Oil Co. v. Ross, 356 S.W.3d 924 (Tex. 2011) (discovery rule applicability; inherently undiscoverable injuries)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (principles on discovery rule and accrual)
Via Net v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) (category-based analysis of discoverability)
Conoco, Inc. v. Amarillo Nat’l Bank, 14 S.W.3d 325 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000) (diligence required; judge as factfinder on inquiry)
Johnson v. Abbey, 737 S.W.2d 68 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987) (diligence standard in fiduciary-duty context)
Thigpen v. Locke, 363 S.W.2d 247 (Tex.1962) (informal fiduciary relationships (confidential relationships))
Meyer v. Cathey, 167 S.W.3d 327 (Tex. 2005) (existence of fiduciary relationship questions of fact unless undisputed)
Mooney v. Harlin, 622 S.W.2d 83 (Tex. 1981) (constructive notice in probate context)
Via Net, Inc. v. TIG Ins. Co., 211 S.W.3d 310 (Tex. 2006) (discovery rule applicability principles)
Hofland v. Elgin-Butler Brick Co., 834 S.W.2d 409 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1992) (accrual when possession and demand/REF model)