Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion

In its=20 second issue, Awalt contends no proof was presented to the trial = court=20 regarding the time for the accrual of the debt and, thus, no proof = of the=20 date on which the cause of action accrued. As we noted = above, this=20 case is controlled by the statute governing dissolved = corporations. =20 However, because neither party has briefed that issue and both = argue from=20 the perspective that the corporation has continued to exist, in = the=20 interests of judicial economy we address the issue of when=20 Awalt=3Ds claim on=20 a sworn account accrued. Awalt presented its argument = concerning=20 accrual of the cause of action via a special exception.

The=20 purpose of a statute of limitations is to establish a point of = repose and=20 to terminate stale claims. Murray v. San Jacinto Agency,=20 Inc., 800 S.W.2d 826, 828 (Tex. 1990). A cause of action = generally accrues at the time when facts come into existence that=20 authorize a claimant to seek a judicial remedy. = Id. The=20 limitations period begins to run when the wrongful act = occursChere,=20 non-payment of owed moniesCresulting=20 in some damage to the plaintiff. Id. =

In this=20 case, the evidence established that the last bill from Awalt was = sent and=20 became due in June 1999. At that point, M Power failed to = make any=20 further payments on current and past amounts that were due. = M Power=20 terminated its relationship with Awalt in June 1999, ceasing all = dealings=20 with Awalt. Therefore, Awalt suffered damages due to the M=20 Power=3Ds wrongful=20 act of refusing to make payment. The limitations period = began to run=20 and, assuming the dissolution statute does not apply, expired four = years=20 later. Awalt brought suit approximately six months too = late. =20 We overrule Awalt=3Ds second=20 issue.

Conclusion

Having=20 overruled both of Awalt=3Ds issues,=20 we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

/s/ =20 J. Harvey Hudson

Justice

Judgment=20 rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed June 19, 2007.

Panel=20 consists of Justices Yates, Anderson, and Hudson.

^{^[1]} M Power raises the issue of = whether the=20 federal magistrate judge=3Ds ruling triggers the rule of collateral = estoppel=20 in this case, such that the issues have been decided = already. =20 However, we need not reach that issue because the record = affirmatively=20 demonstrates all of the undisputed facts necessary to resolve this = appeal.

^{^[2]} Neither party addressed what = legally became=20 of M Power once its certificate and charter were revoked in = Texas. =20 It is not entirely clear that M Power=3Ds charter was revoked. However, = viewing the=20 facts in the light most favorable to Awalt, M Power was dissolved = on=20 February 11, 2000. See Tex.=20 Bus. Corp. Act.=20 Ann. art. = 7.12(F)(1);=20 Landrum v. Thunderbird Speedway, Inc., 97 S.W.3d 756, = 758 (Tex. App.CDallas 2003, no pet.) (holding that the = forfeiture=20 of a corporate charter results in a corporations=20 = dissolution).