1. Limitations Issues The parties agree that a four-year statute of limitations applies to actions for breach of contract. Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, rev. denied); Morriss v. Enron Oil Gas Co., 948 S.W.2d 858, 869 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1997, no writ). They further agree that most actions for breach of contract accrue at the time of the breach.

The purpose of the rule is to relieve the courts of the necessity of resolving disputes over the terms of oral agreements relating to pending suits. Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 688 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). As explained in Anderson, however, in enforcing rule 11 "the Texas Supreme Court has been mindful of the fact that the rule may be said to abridge the substantive right of persons to enter into oral contracts."

Id. at 635–36. FN31. SeeAnderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 688–89 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied); see alsoKennedy, 682 S.W.2d at 529 (noting that “an undisputed stipulation may be given effect despite literal noncompliance with the rule”). FN32. SeeKennedy, 682 S.W.2d at 529.

The contract is not breached until a wrongful act occurs. See Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied). A cause of action generally accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when facts come into existence that authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy.

In Texas, the statute of limitations for fraud claims is four years. Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied). As a result, the fraud claim is time-barred with respect to the 2014 and 2015 Agreements.

The contract is not breached until a wrongful act occurs. See Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied). A cause of action generally accrues, and the statute of limitations begins to run, when facts come into existence that authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy.

Instead, Thompson argues that Hamilton "took advantage of the [Agreement] by enforcing its provisions to her benefit" and that she should not be able to denounce the Agreement because she does not dispute the existence of the Agreement or its terms. See Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 688-89 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (noting exception to Rule 11's writing requirement when existence of agreement and its terms are not disputed); Dehnert v. Dehnert, 705 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1986, no writ) (holding husband could not take advantage of unsigned settlement agreement in divorce case by receiving some property under agreement and then later denouncing agreement). The record belies Thompson's contentions that Hamilton "enforced" the provisions of the Agreement to her benefit and that she does not dispute the Agreement's existence or terms.

But these dates do not evidence the date of Supermart's breach, which is the date on which a breach of contract claim generally accrues. Anderson v. Cocheau, 176 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). Supermart does not inform us when these bills were presented to it—before or after A-1 paid them—or when Supermart refused to pay them.

Appellants argue that any reliance on statements made during an adversarial negotiation process is unjustified and unreasonable as a matter of law. "Although reliance on statements made in an adversarial context is not generally justifiable . . . we have found [no case] holding that a party's reliance on an opposing party's statement during litigation is unjustified as a matter of law." Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 690 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). There is also no indication that Meritz could have discovered the fraud was an obvious lie, or that with a reasonable investigation the statement could have been refuted.

Id. The statute of limitations for a fraud claim is four years. Anderson v. Cocheu, 176 S.W.3d 685, 689 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied). In an action for fraud, limitations begins to run when the fraud is perpetrated, or if the fraud is concealed, from the time it is discovered or could have been discovered by the exercise of reasonable diligence.