High Risk Pregnancy Doctors, PLLC and Violetta Lozovyy v. Lincoln Property Company D/B/A Lincoln Harris CSG and Douglas MacLay III

Summary

The Texas Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District, affirmed a Rule 91a dismissal of fraud, fraudulent-inducement, and Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims brought by a medical practice and its physician against a leasing company and its representative. The court held that reliance on an alleged oral representation concerning lease obligations was not justifiable as a matter of law because it was directly contradicted by the express terms of the written lease. The court also held that the discovery rule did not toll the DTPA limitations period because the alleged deception could have been discovered through reasonable diligence and review of the lease.

Holdings

1. A party cannot justifiably rely as a matter of law on an oral representation that is directly contradicted by the express, unambiguous terms of a written agreement. Because appellants' petition showed that MacLay's alleged promise conflicted with the lease's privilege requirements and was not incorporated into the lease, the fraud and fraudulent-inducement claims had no basis in law under Rule 91a.
2. The discovery rule did not toll limitations on appellants' DTPA claim because the alleged deception was not inherently undiscoverable and appellants failed to exercise reasonable diligence by comparing MacLay's statement with the readily accessible written lease. The DTPA claim filed more than two years after the May 2022 representation was therefore time-barred.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the fraud and fraudulent-inducement claims under Rule 91a because reliance on MacLay's alleged oral representation was not justifiable as a matter of law when the representation directly contradicted the lease's express, unambiguous terms.
2. Whether the trial court properly dismissed the DTPA claim as time-barred because the discovery rule did not toll limitations where appellants could have discovered the alleged deception through reasonable diligence by reviewing the lease.

Disposition

affirmed