Court Opinion

ID: 9640365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:04:30.423819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:29.380311
License: Public Domain

Concurring and dissenting opinion by:
SARAH B. DUNCAN, Justice.
I concur in the majority’s judgment and opinion regarding Millan’s negligence, gross negligence, conversion, and fraud claims. There is no evidence to support Millan’s fraud claim; and the remainder of the claims are barred by the two-year statute of limitations. However, I disagree with the majority’s adherence to its earlier holding in Farias v. Laredo Nat. Bank, 985 S.W.2d 465, 471 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, pet. denied), that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by a two-year statute of limitations.
At the time Farias issued, I believed it was wrongly decided on the limitations point and thus joined a majority of the court in granting Farias’s motion for reconsideration en banc. Unfortunately, however, our error remained uncorrected. In line with the appellee’s argument, the order granting Farias’s motion for en banc review was withdrawn and Farias’s motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction'— erroneously in my view. See Yzaguirre v. *771Gonzalez, 989 S.W.2d 111, 114 (Tex.App.San Antonio 1999, pet. denied) (holding “ ‘motion for rehearing,’ as used in Rule 19.1(b), includes motions for reconsideration en banc”).
I would take this opportunity to correct Farias, hold that a breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by a four-year statute of limitations, reverse the trial court’s take-nothing judgment on Millan’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, and remand this claim to the trial court for a new trial.