Summary
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Jeannine Flournoy Brown in a dispute involving executory real-estate contracts, deeds of trust, alleged Texas Property Code violations, fraud, breach of contract, and DTPA claims. The court held that the appellants’ claims were time-barred because the alleged wrongful conduct ceased no later than 2006 and the continuing-tort doctrine did not apply. The court also affirmed summary judgment on the Property Code section 5.081 claim because the appellants failed to challenge an independent economic-loss ground.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment on appellants' claims based on statutes of limitations and the economic-loss doctrine.
- Whether the continuing-tort doctrine tolled limitations for appellants' statutory, contract, fraud, fraudulent-inducement, DTPA, and statutory-real-estate-fraud claims.
- Whether appellants could rely on fraudulent concealment when that theory was first raised in a pleading filed after the summary-judgment hearing and judgment.
- Whether summary judgment on the Texas Property Code section 5.081 claim should be affirmed because appellants failed to challenge an independent economic-loss ground.
Holdings
- When a summary-judgment order does not specify which ground supports the ruling, the appellant must challenge every independent ground asserted by the movant; the judgment may be affirmed if any ground is meritorious or unchallenged.
- The court will not consider a fraudulent-concealment limitations defense raised for the first time in an amended petition filed after the trial court entered summary judgment.
- The continuing-tort doctrine did not toll limitations for appellants' claims because the alleged wrongful conduct occurred no later than the 2006 execution of the deeds of trust, and later payments represented continuing injury or damages from earlier conduct rather than repeated wrongful acts causing separate injuries.
- Appellants' claims for alleged Property Code violations under sections 5.068, 5.069, 5.072, 5.076, and 5.077, breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, DTPA damages, and statutory real-estate fraud were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
Key quotations
“When, as here, multiple grounds are asserted in a summary-judgment motion and the summary-judgment order does not specify a ground for the court’s rulings, the appellant must show on appeal that each independent ground alleged is insufficient to support summary judgment.” (5)
“A continuing tort involves wrongful conduct inflicted over a period of time that is repeated until desisted, and each day creates a separate cause of action.” (8)
“Care must be taken to distinguish between 1) repeated injury proximately caused by repetitive wrongful or tort[i]ous acts and 2) continuing injury arising from one wrongful act.” (9)
Factual background
Mendo and Castro entered into residential lease-purchase agreements for two Austin properties in 1998 and 2000, respectively, with Brown acting for the owner and later as trustee of the J&R Flournoy Trust. They alleged that Brown misrepresented the agreements and failed to comply with several Texas Property Code requirements, including providing Spanish-language contracts, notices, recordings, and annual accountings. In 2006, the parties executed deeds of trust conveying the properties to appellants, and appellants alleged that the balances stated in those deeds were inflated because prior rent, interest, tax, and insurance payments were not properly credited. Appellants sued on June 30, 2023; the deed for one property was recorded in 2019 and the deed for the other in 2022.
Procedural history
Appellants sued Brown asserting violations of the Texas Property Code, breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent inducement, Deceptive Trade Practices Act damages, statutory real-estate fraud, and attorney's fees. Brown moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment based on limitations and the economic-loss doctrine. The trial court granted summary judgment without specifying its grounds. The court of appeals affirmed because appellants failed to challenge every independent ground supporting summary judgment on their section 5.081 claim and because the remaining claims were time-barred.