Bec ause the p arti es bear co mmon sur names, w e w il l re fer to al l members of the 1 Ur b a n c zykfa m il y b y gi ve n n a m e o n ly. NO. 07-07 -007 7-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JAN UA RY

29, 2009

_________

_________

_________

___ DELMER URBANCZY K, APP ELL ANT

v. MA RV IN U RB AN CZ Y K AN D JAN ET UR BAN CZ Y K, A PPELLE ES

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 10 0 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF CA RS ON COU NT Y; TH NO. 985 4; HON. DAVID M. McCOY , PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Appel lan t D elmer

U rb ancz y k s ued hi s b ro ther M ar v in Ur ban cz y k a nd s is ter-i n- law JanetU rb ancz y k, and tw o brokerag e fir ms, Edw ard D . J ones & Co. , L. P., and A. G. Edw ards & Son s, Inc ., for v ar iou s t orts and dec larator y reli ef ari si ng from the h andl ing of an ac count jointly owned by D elm er, his mo the r Isabel Urban cz y k, and his brothe r Arnold Urbanczy k. 12

The cl aims agai nstEdw ard Jones and A.G. Edw ards w ere referred to ar bit ra ti on and lat er sev ered from thi s cas e. The tr ial cour t g ra nted Ma rv in and J anet a s ummary j udg ment on the g ro und t hat a ll of Del mer’ s caus es of act ion w ere barred by l imi tati ons. As ser

ti ng the dis cov er y r ule and fraudul ent conc eal ment pres er v ed his cl aims , Del mer appeal s. F ind ing th e di s c ov er

y r ul e an d fr au du l en t c on c ea l me nti na pp l i c ab l e, w e affi r m. Back g ro und W hen a sum ma ry

ju d gm e n ti s base d on the ple adin gs, w e assu me the trut h of all factual al leg ati ons in the n on- mov ant’ s p lea din g . Nat iv ida d v. Alexs is, In c., 875 S. W .2d 695 , 699 (Tex. 1994 ). W e the refore sum ma riz e the salient facts alleged byDelmer. In 19 89, an acco untw as e s t a b li s hed w ith Edward Jone s in the na me of Delmer, Isa bel and Ar nol d as “

joi nt t enants i n c ommon w it h r ig ht of surv iv orshi p.” In part , t he j oin t accou nt w as create d for the ca re o f A rnold, sh ould a n eed arise. A portion of the f und s in the j oin t ac countw er e contr ibu ted byDelmer
. The mail ing addres s on the jo intac countw as a po st of

f ice box belonging to Isabe l. In 200 0, Isa bel suf fered a st ro k e . A te mp orary guardian w as ap poin ted and she m oved to a nursing h om e. De lme r does no t believe his mo the r regained “fu ll capacity.” In F ebr uar

y and Ma rc h 2001, as set s o f the j oin t ac countw ere transfer re d i nto a n accou nt owned exclusiv ely by Isab el. De lme r’s pleadings and summ aryjudgmen t evi den ce are to th e ef

fect th at signatu res of

Delmer, Isa bel an d Arno ld aut horizi ng the tran sfers w ere forg ed, a nd th at M ar

v in and Janet or ches trated the transfers, w it hout Del mer’ s c onsen t or know led g e. Dur ing 2002, Is a b e l g ra nted Ma rv in and J anet a s tatut or y durabl e pow er

of3

attor ney . Al so, i n N ov ember 2002, Ar nol d di ed. The funds or ig ina ti ng i n the j oin t ac count w ere s ubsequ e n tly

mov ed to A.G . Ed w ards and ul ti matel y pl aced in acc ounts ow ned by Isa bel , M ar

v in and J anet. At a M ay

2004 meeti ng w it h Edw ard J o n e s, Delmer l ear ned of the transfer of the funds to A.G. Edw ards and t hat h e w as no long er named on the ac count
. In A ug ust2004, Del mer dis cov ered forg ed s ig natures w ere us ed to transfer funds fro m the joi nt ac count
. Isa bel di ed i n Apr il 2006. Del mer filed the pr esent sui t in Ma y 2006 s eeki ng damag es ag ain st Ma rv in and J anet for conversion and tortiou s interferen ce w ith inhe ritance rig hts. He also sou ght declarat ory and i nju nct iv e rel ief. Ma rv in and Janet answ ered by g eneral deni al and affirmat iv ely pl ead th e a p plicable statu te of limitation s barred all of Delmer’s claims. Delmer am end ed h is peti ti on addi ng causes of acti on agai nstMar

v in and Janet for breac h of fiduc iar y duty , frau d, and unjustenrichm entand interpo sed th e discovery rule and f raud ulen t conce alm en tin re spons e to thei r li mita ti ons defense. M a rvi n and Janetfil ed a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment on Del mer’ s l iv e pet it ion co ntendi ng thatfrom t he face o f the d ocument all cl aims al leg ed w ere bar re d by l imi tati ons and t he di sc ov er y r u le la ck ed appl ic ati on becau se a s a matt er

of law D elmer ’s cl aims w ere noti nherentl y undi sc ov erabl e. Del mer filed a respon se w ith s u ppor ti ng ev ide nce, arg uin g the dis cov er y r ule and fraudul ent conc eal ment i n av oid a n ce o f t h e l imi tati ons cl aim. The t ri al cour t g ra nted the mot ion of Marv in and Jane t and sev ered Delmer’s claims againstthe bro k e ra ge f irm s. Th e cou rt deni ed D elmer ’s moti on for new tr ial and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed.4 Iss ue Del mer present s t he foll ow ing si ng le is sue: W hether D efendants neg ated as a matt er of law both Plai nti ff ’s as ser

ti ons of the discovery

rule and of

f raud ulen t conce alm entin o rd e r to estab lish Defend ant s’ defense of limitation s i n o rder to justif y summ aryjudgmen t in thei r fav or

as ente re d by

the Tri al Cou rt
. W e rev iew

the g ra nti ng of

a tradi ti onal summary

j udg ment moti on de n ovo , app ly ing famili ar st andards: A. The mov ant for

su mmary

j udg ment has the burden of sh ow ing tha t the re is no genui n e i s s u e o f mat erial fact an d tha t it is e n t it le d t o ju d gm e n ta s a m a t t e r o f la w. B. In de term ining whethe r th ere is a d ispute d issue of m ate rial fa ct pr ecl udi ng su mmary

j udg ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n onmov ant w il l be ta ken as tr ue. C. Eve ryreason abl e i nferenc e mustbe i ndul g ed i n fav or of the non -movant a nd a ny dou bts resolved in its favor. Ni xon v. Mr

. Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S.W .2d 5 46, 5 48- 49 ( Tex . 198 5)
. A defendant mov ing for s ummary j udg ment on the aff ir mati v e defense of li mita ti ons must conc lus iv ely

es tabl is h the defense. KPM G Pe at Mar wic k v . Har r i s on C ou nt

y Hous. Fi n. C or p., 988 S. W .2d 7 46, 7 48 ( Tex . 199 9)
. Acc ordin g ly , i t i s for the defendant ( 1) to conc lus ivel y p ro v e w hen t he c ause of acti on ac cr ued, and ( 2) neg ate t he di sc ov er y r ule , if pl eaded a nd appl ic abl e, by p ro ving as a mat ter

of law there i s n o g enui ne i ss ue of ma terial fact ab outw hen the pla intif f discovered, or in the e x ercise of reason able dilig ence5

shoul d hav e disc ov ered, the nature of his inj ur y . Id. If the mov ant e sta bli shes the sta tute of li mita ti ons bars t he ac ti on, the non-mov ant must then adduce summar y judg ment proof ra is ing a facti ss ue. Id. H er e the par ti es ag re e tha t D elmer ’s cl aims are s ubj ectto tw o- or four-year li mita tions p eriods. T heir disagreem entlies w ith the app licability of the disco v ery ru le and frau dul ent c oncea lment
. Discov eryRule Unl ik e the tol li ng f eature of f ra udul ent conc eal ment, the dis cov er y rul e defers ac cr ual of a caus e of act ion until the pla int iff know s, or throug h the ex er ci se of reas onabl e di li g ence, shoul d know of fact s g iv ing ri se to t he c ause of acti on. Computer A ssoc. Int'l, In c. v. Altai, Inc ., 918 S.W .2d 453, 455 (Tex
. 1996)
. The dis cov er y r ule i s “ a v er

y l imi ted e x cept ion to statu tes of limitat ions,” and app lies only w hen the plaint if f ’s injury is b o t h (1 ) i nhe rently undi sc ov erabl e, an d ( 2) obj ect iv ely v er ifiab le. Id. at 455 -56. A n i n ju ry is inhe rently undi sc ov erabl e i f, by

i ts nature, i t i s u nli kel y

to be di sc ov ered dur ing the appl ic abl e l imi tati on per iod des pit e the ex er ci se of due di li g ence. S.V. v. R .V., 933 S. W .2d 1 , 7 (Tex . 1996) ( citing Altai

, 918 S. W .2d a t 456 ). The q uest ion i s n ot w hether the par ti cul ar i nju ry w as act ual ly di sc ov er ed by

the cl aimantw it hin the li mita ti on per iod , butw hether “ itw as the ty pe of i nj ur y t ha t i s g en eral l y

d i s c ov erab l e by

t he e x erc i s e of rea s on ab l e di l i gence.” HECI Expl or ati on C o. v . Neel , 982 S. W .2d 8 81, 8 86 ( Tex . 199 8) ; see Con oco, Inc. v. Ama ri llo Nat 'l Bank , 14 S.W .3d 325 , 328 (Tex. App. –Am arillo 2000 , no pe t.) (fin ding rule inapp licable in cas e al leg ing co nv ersi on of col lat eral)
. In ot her w ords, w hether the d is cov er y r ule appl ies is dete rmine d “categorically .” HE CI Ex plo ra ti on , 982 S.W .2d a t 886
.6

T he type of

injury Delmer’s suit against Marvi n an d Jan et alleges is the ir una uth oriz ed tran sfer of assets from a broke rage accoun t of w hich Delm er w as joint owner. W e s ee not hin g about

su ch an inj ur

y to mak e i t i nherentl y

undi sc ov erabl e. Ev en w here, as here, t he i nju re d ac countco -o w ner does not re cei v e ac countst atements , t he f actthat asset s have been transferred f rom th e acco un twith outhis auth oriz ation is read ily dis cov erabl e. A si mple re q uest to re v iew an acc ount sta tement, address ed to the c o- ow ner w ho recei v es the stat ements or to the brokerag e f ir m it sel f, shoul d br ing the unautho ri z ed transf er to lig ht. T he d iscovery rule is res e rve d for the types of injuries not ord inarily dis cov erabl e, ev en th oug h due dil ig ence has been us ed. Altai , 918 S.W .2d a t 456
. De lm e r p o ints to th e spe cif ics of this particula r brokerage accou nt, n oting only his mother ’s address w as li ste d on the a cc ount and i t req uired th e s ign atures of all three acc o u n t h o l d e rs t o e ffe c t a t r a n s fe r o f a s s e t s fro m t h e a c c o u n t
. B u t D e l me r’ s a rg ument ig nores the req uirement t hat dis cov er y -r ule anal y si s focus on t he ty pe of i nju ry . See, e.g., HE CI Ex plo ra ti on , 9 8 2 S. W .2 d at88 6 (di sc u ss in g Altai , 918 S.W .2d at 457, not ing thattrade sec re t mi sappropr iat ion “ g enerall y ” is ca pabl e of detec ti on w it hin the ti me al lotted for bringing suit, alth ough the p articular injury ma y not ha v e be en d iscovered). The discovery ru le d o e s n o te x c u s e a p a rt y f ro m e xe rc is in g re a s o n a b le d il ig e n c e in p ro t e c t in g i t s o wn int erest s. Pitm an v

. Li ghtfo ot, 937 S.W .2d 496 , 510 (Tex.App .–S an Anton io 199 2, no w rit). W e f ind the in jury

De lme r alleges w as notinheren tly und iscoverable, an d the discovery rule has no appl ic ati on.7

Fraudul ent C oncea lment A defendant w ho by

co nduct or

l eg al re lat ion shi p i s u nder a du ty of dis cl osure and w ho fraud ule ntl y

co nceal s th e e xi ste nce of a caus e of act ion from t he par ty to w hom he ow es the d uty , i s e sto pped fro m rely ing on the defense of the sta tute of li mita ti ons unti l the other par ty l ear ns of t he caus e of ac ti on or shoul d hav e lea rn ed of i ts ex is tenc e throug h the ex er ci se of reas onabl e di ligenc e. Bor der lon v. Peck, 661 S.W .2d 907 , 908 (Tex. 1983 ). “The ele ments of f ra udul ent c oncea lmentare: ( 1) the existenc e of the under ly ing tor t; (2 ) the defendant' s know led g e of t he tor t; (3 ) the d efendant's us e of dece pti on to co nceal the tort; an d (4) th e plaint if f 's rea sona ble reliance on the dece ption .” Mitchell Ene rgy Corp. v. Bar tlett, 958 S. W .2d 4 30, 4 39 ( Tex .App. –For t W orth 1 9 9 7, pe t. deni ed) ; see HECI Expl or ati on, 9 8 2 S
. W
. 2 d a t8 8 6
. T h e d e fe n d a n t ’s d e c e p t io n o c c u rs t h ro u gh “a c t ive s u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e t r u t h o r fa i l u r e t o d i s c l o s e w h e n t h e d e fe n d a n ti s u n d e r a d u t y to disclose. ” Bar

tlett, 958 S.W .2d at 439 . A plaint if f rely ing on frau dule nt concea lme nt m ust hav e reason abl y

reli ed on the d efendant’ s a cti v e misre present ati ons or , i f appli cabl e, i ts si len ce. Bar

tlett, 958 S. W .2d at 439. How ev er , rel ian ce becomes unreas onabl e, an d the tol li ng per iod ends , onc e the pla int iff know s o r shoul d k now of the c oncea lment
. Id. If the mov ant o f a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j u d gm e nt on the sta tute of li mita ti ons conc lus iv ely

prov es enti tl e m e n t to thi s a ff ir mati v e defense, the non- mov ant, all eg ing fra u d u l e n t

c o n ceal ment, must presentco mpetent summar y j udg ment ev ide nce est abl is hin g an iss ue of

f acton each el ement of f ra udul ent conc eal ment. See KPM G Peat Ma rwick , 988 S.W .2d a t 749
.8

Del mer arg ues that the a rt ific e M ar v in and J anet employ ed to co nceal the conv ersi on o f t h e j o i n t a c c o u n t p ro c e e d s w a s d e l i v e r y t o E d w a rd J o n e s o f d o c u me n t s b e ar ing the forg ed s ig natures of Del mer, Is abel and Ar nol d. But that arg um e n t s impl y des cr ibe s t he under ly ing tor

t of co nv ersi on. It does not desc ri be ac ti v e mi srepresent ati ons to c oncea l the tor t, nor D elmer ’s reason abl e re li ance on the re present ati ons. The present ati on of forg ed si g natures w as the means of t he unde rl y ing co nv ersi on, n ot t he means of it s c oncea lment
. In a v a r i a t i o n o n t h e s a me a rg u me n t , D e l me r a t t e mp t s t o ra i s e a fa c t i s s u e o n the misrep resen tatio n an d reliance elem ent s byconte ndin g tha t Marv in and Jane t ef fectively decei v ed hi m throug h the ir dec epti on of E dw ard J ones, so thati t al low ed transfer of funds f rom th e joint acco untw ithou t Delme r’s autho riz ation . Further, he asserts, neith er Edward Jones nor Mar

v in and J anet dis cl osed the w ro ng ful transacti on to D elmer
. Del mer say s h e re li ed on the s il ence of Edw ard J ones, and that of Mar v in and J anet, to his i nju ry . W e f in d t here is no ev iden ce tha t Edward Jones sto od in Delm er’s shoes vis- a-v is any fraudul ent represent ati ons per petra te d by M ar v in and J anet and c oncer nin g the joi nt acc ount. Cf

. Ster li ng Tr ust Co. v. Adder

ley , 1 6 8 S
. W
. 3 d 8 3 5 , 8 4 7 (T e x. 2 0 0 5 ). Fu rt h e r, we see n o evidence in the sum ma ry judgmen t record of

cond uct by or a l e ga l re la t ionsh ip in Marv in and Jane t creating a dut y in them to disclose to Delmer the Fe b ruary and March 2001 tra nsfers of

f unds from the j oin t ac count
. See Hoggett v. Br own, 971 S. W .2d 4 72, 4 87 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1997, pet. deni ed) ( li sti ng si tuati ons g iv ing r is e to duty to disclose); Ral

sto n Pur ina Co. v. Mc Kendr

ick, 850 S .W .2d 629 , 633 (Tex.App .–S an An ton io 199 3, w rit denied ) ( existence of duty to disclose informa tion is a question of law ).9

Finally , as w e ha v e no ted , the facts w hich Delm er allege s we re f raud ulen tly conc eal ed from h im w ere readi ly di sc ov erabl e throug h the ex er ci se of reas onabl e di li g ence. W e c oncl ude t here i s n o s ummary j udg ment ev ide nce ra is ing an i ss ue of fact on fraudul ent conc eal ment. Ac cordin g ly , w e ov er ru le Del mer’ s a ppel lat e i ss ue. In a moti on w e hav e carr ied w it h the case, Ma rv in and J anet seek our i mposi ti on of an uns peci fied s anct ion on D elmer
. The moti on i s d eni ed. Hav ing ov er ru led D elmer ’s appel lat e i ss ue, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Jam es T . Camp bell Justice