West v. Proctor, 353 S.W.3d 558

West and Hamilton had a long-standing fiduciary relationship; Hamilton brokered a salt-water lease on West’s property and sought a substantial fee.
Disagreement existed over Hamilton’s compensation—West believed 15% of the first royalty; Hamilton believed 1/3 of all royalties.
West signed the Panhandle Brine salt-water lease on November 17, 1999, trusting Hamilton; she did not read the contract at signing.
The lease provided Hamilton a 1/3 share of monthly royalties, contrary to West’s understanding of a one-time 15% of the first royalty payment.
West learned of the contract terms and discovered potential fiduciary breaches years later, filing suit in May 2006 after discovery.
The trial court granted summary judgment on limitations; the Amarillo Court of Appeals reversed on some related issues and ultimately affirmed the trial court’s judgment unfavorable to West.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Limitations accrual and discovery rule applicability	West argues discovery rule defers accrual; fraudulent concealment and discovery rule support delay	Proctor contends discovery rule does not apply or was waived; limitations bar suits	The court held limitations barred; discovery rule not supported for timely accrual (discovery rule not proven)
Proctor's individual liability capacity	West asserts Proctor liable individually due to failure to deny capacity	Proctor lacked evidence for individual liability; no verified denial of capacity	Proctor not liable in her individual capacity; no evidentiary basis for such submission

S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (legal injury rule and discovery rule concepts discussed)
Advent Trust Co. v. Hyder, 12 S.W.3d 534 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1999) (discovery rule; deferred accrual)
Wright v. Greenberg, 2 S.W.3d 666 (Tex.App.-Houston 14th Dist. 1999) (fraudulent concealment elements; discovery rule)
Willis v. Maverick, 760 S.W.2d 642 (Tex. 1988) (fiduciary relationship; undiscoverable misconduct)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) ((duplicate reference for context))
Hudson v. Wakefield, 711 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. 1986) (law of case and discovery burden distinctions)
Murphy v. Campbell, 964 S.W.2d 265 (Tex. 1997) (accrual and discovery rule principles)
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standard for legal sufficiency review; discovery rule context)
Cropper v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 754 S.W.2d 646 (Tex. 1988) (great weight standard; sufficiency review)
Canal Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 238 S.W.3d 549 (Tex. App.-Tyler 2007) (affirmative defenses; burden of proof on limitations)