Introduction

In McGrath v. Brewer, No. 24-50335 (5th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025) (per curiam) (unpublished), the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of fraud-based claims as time-barred under Texas law. The plaintiff, Sean McGrath, alleged he was defrauded in a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by Michael Booth and facilitated by Booth’s friend, Johnny D. Cope, a member of an elite golf club. After Booth defaulted on two short-term, high-interest loans in early 2018, McGrath waited until September 2023 to sue Cope’s estate and its executors for fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and related claims, arguing that tolling doctrines saved his case.

The court rejected those arguments, holding that accrual occurred when McGrath suffered injury from Booth’s loan defaults in February/March 2018; the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment did not defer accrual because the pleadings themselves established inquiry notice; and civil conspiracy accrues with the underlying tort. The decision underscores that:

• A borrower’s default and accompanying red flags can trigger the statute of limitations for fraud in Texas.
• The discovery rule and fraudulent concealment do not postpone accrual until the plaintiff knows the precise wrongdoer or the scheme’s contours.
• Limitations attach to the claim, not to particular defendants; conspiracy claims rise and fall with the primary tort’s accrual date.
• Federal courts may resolve tolling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion when the complaint negates a basis for tolling.

Summary of the Opinion

The district court dismissed McGrath’s claims under Rule 12(b)(6) as barred by Texas’s four-year statute of limitations for fraud, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(4). The Fifth Circuit affirmed, concluding:

• Accrual: McGrath’s fraud and conspiracy claims accrued no later than March 2018—when Booth defaulted on the loans and McGrath suffered financial injury.
• Discovery Rule: Inapplicable. The complaint showed McGrath knew facts giving rise to inquiry as of the defaults and subsequent reporting and circumstances; the rule does not wait for the identity of every wrongdoer or the full mechanism of the scheme.
• Fraudulent Concealment: Also inapplicable. McGrath had actual knowledge of a wrongfully caused injury years earlier; any concealment did not toll the statute once facts existed that would prompt a reasonably prudent person to investigate.
• Civil Conspiracy: Accrues with the underlying tort; thus, no separate later accrual against alleged co-conspirators such as Cope.
• Choice-of-Law: McGrath argued for New Mexico law, but identified no substantive conflict. No choice-of-law analysis was necessary.
• Leave to Amend: Properly denied as futile. The proposed amendments (e.g., additional diligence steps) would not alter the accrual analysis.

Disposition: Affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and How They Shaped the Decision

• Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Inv. Servs. of Nev., Inc. v. Triex Texas Holdings, LLC, 659 S.W.3d 456 (Tex. 2023) (per curiam)

  Central to the panel’s reasoning. In Triex, a lease default—after a broker touted a “sure-fire” investment—triggered accrual for fraud and fiduciary-duty claims because it put the plaintiff on notice “that something was amiss.” The court emphasized that the discovery rule does not defer accrual until the plaintiff knows the specific nature of each wrongful act or the identity of all wrongdoers. McGrath’s facts were analogous: Booth’s immediate defaults, coupled with known red flags, started the clock.

• KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison County Housing Finance Corp., 988 S.W.2d 746 (Tex. 1999)

  Stands for the proposition that accrual hinges on knowledge of a wrongfully caused injury—not on knowing each participant or every detail. Also informs fraudulent concealment: once the injury is discovered, concealment does not indefinitely suspend limitations. The panel applied this to conclude that McGrath’s knowledge of nonpayment and loss in 2018 defeated tolling.

• Wise v. Anderson, 359 S.W.2d 876 (Tex. 1962), citing Glenn v. Steele, 61 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. 1933)

  Establishes “inquiry notice”: knowledge of facts that would cause a reasonably prudent person to investigate is treated as knowledge of the fraud itself for limitations purposes. The court invoked this doctrine to show that the 2018 defaults, coupled with surrounding facts, obligated an investigation within the four-year period.

• Berry v. Berry, 646 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. 2022)

  Articulates the general accrual rule—claims accrue when a legal injury occurs—and frames the narrowness of the discovery rule. The panel cited Berry to reinforce that accrual begins when facts exist authorizing a judicial remedy, regardless of when all damages or actors become known.

• Childs v. Haussecker, 974 S.W.2d 31 (Tex. 1998)

  Clarifies that limitations commence when the plaintiff discovers the injury and that it was likely caused by another’s wrongful act, even if the exact identity of the wrongdoer remains unknown. Applied here to reject the contention that McGrath could wait to sue until he learned of Cope’s involvement.

• Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int’l, LLC, 580 S.W.3d 136 (Tex. 2019)

  Conspiracy is derivative and accrues with the primary tort. The panel applied Agar to dispel any theory that the conspiracy claim could accrue later than the underlying fraud merely because a conspirator was identified later.

• Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy Corp., 519 S.W.3d 605 (Tex. 2017)

  Reiterates that facts prompting a reasonable inquiry are equivalent to knowledge of the cause of action. The court used this to underscore that McGrath’s allegations pled himself into inquiry notice long before 2023.

• Hooks v. Samson Lone Star, Ltd. P’ship, 457 S.W.3d 52 (Tex. 2015)

  While diligence is often a fact question, courts may decide as a matter of law whether reasonable diligence would have uncovered the wrong. The panel used Hooks to justify deciding tolling at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

• PPG Indus., Inc. v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Partners, 146 S.W.3d 79 (Tex. 2004)

  The discovery rule does not postpone accrual until the plaintiff learns “actual causes and possible cures.” The panel echoed this principle in rejecting McGrath’s effort to await clarity about Cope’s role.

• Valdez v. Hollenbeck, 465 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2015) and Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996)

  Define fraudulent concealment as an estoppel-based doctrine that does not extend limitations indefinitely; tolling ends when a reasonably prudent person would have inquired. The panel applied this to conclude any concealment ended once McGrath knew of the defaults and loss.

• Borderlon v. Peck, 661 S.W.2d 907 (Tex. 1983)

  An example where fraudulent concealment tolled limitations (physician left a needle in patient and did not disclose). The panel contrasted such facts with McGrath’s actual knowledge of loss in 2018.

• Federal pleading and review standards

  The panel cited Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007); and Fifth Circuit cases including King-White v. Humble ISD, 803 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2015), and Jones v. Alcoa, 339 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2003), to confirm that courts may dismiss on limitations where the complaint negates tolling and pleads itself out of court.

• Choice-of-law authority

  Because McGrath did not identify a “true conflict,” the court declined a choice-of-law analysis, citing Schneider Nat’l Transp. v. Ford Motor Co., 280 F.3d 532 (5th Cir. 2002) and Flagship Credit Corp. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., 481 F. App’x 907 (5th Cir. 2012).

Legal Reasoning

1. Accrual at injury: Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(4), fraud claims must be brought within four years of accrual. Accrual occurs when the plaintiff suffers a legal injury. The panel held that McGrath’s injury occurred when Booth defaulted on the loans in February/March 2018—creating an immediate, concrete loss and authorizing a judicial remedy.
2. Discovery rule (narrow; inquiry notice governs): The discovery rule is reserved for exceptional cases and defers accrual only until the plaintiff knew or should have known the facts giving rise to the claim. The complaint alleged ample facts—immediate defaults on high-interest loans, Booth’s admitted fraudster history, the public Desert Sun article documenting swindled Bighorn members, and Cope’s close association and vouching—that triggered inquiry notice well before the four-year period expired. The court expressly relied on Triex to conclude that a default on a supposedly safe obligation is a red flag requiring investigation.
3. Fraudulent concealment (estoppel; ends upon inquiry notice): Even assuming concealment, tolling ends when a reasonably prudent person would investigate. McGrath’s knowledge of default and loss—plus surrounding circumstances—defeated any continued tolling years before he sued. The panel underscored that assurances about delayed repayment by “attorney John” did not override the reality of injury and inquiry notice.
4. Civil conspiracy accrual tied to the primary tort: Applying Agar, the court held that conspiracy claims accrue alongside the underlying tort (fraud). Therefore, later discovery of Cope’s role did not reset limitations.
5. Limitations attach to the claim, not the defendant: The court emphasized that statutes of limitations are claim-based. A plaintiff cannot extend the limitations period by discovering a new defendant or theory after accrual.
6. Tolling decided at Rule 12(b)(6) where the pleadings negate it: Citing King-White, the court held that when a complaint “dispels any notion” of tolling, dismissal is proper. McGrath’s own allegations—defaults in 2018; public reporting; reliance on Cope; knowledge of Booth’s past—foreclosed tolling.
7. No conflict of laws; Texas law controls: Because McGrath conceded no substantive conflict with New Mexico law on the issues presented, no choice-of-law analysis was necessary.
8. Leave to amend properly denied as futile: Proposed allegations about additional verification steps (e.g., visiting showrooms; consulting club “luminaries”) would not change the dispositive accrual facts—the injury, the defaults, and the surrounding red flags known in 2018.

Impact and Practical Implications

• Fraud claims arising from defaults: In Texas, a counterparty’s default can itself start the limitations clock for fraud when it signals a wrongfully caused injury. Plaintiffs cannot wait to sue until they understand the scheme or identify every participant.
• Tolling on the pleadings: Plaintiffs who seek discovery-rule or fraudulent-concealment tolling must plead concrete diligence and genuinely obstructive concealment. Courts will dismiss at the 12(b)(6) stage when the complaint shows inquiry notice.
• Conspiracy timing: Conspiracy is derivative. If the primary tort is time-barred, the conspiracy claim is too. Identifying a conspirator late does not revive limitations.
• Claim-based limitations: Litigants cannot evade limitations by reframing parties or theories. The same accrual applies across defendants for the same underlying wrong.
• Due diligence expectations: Plaintiffs must act promptly when confronted with red flags—defaults, public reporting, and known histories of fraud. Reassurances from putative wrongdoers or their close associates rarely suffice to delay accrual.
• Persuasive authority: Though unpublished and non-precedential under 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the decision is a clear application of recent Texas Supreme Court authority (notably Triex) and will be persuasive in similar Texas-law cases.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Accrual: The moment a plaintiff suffers a legal injury that authorizes a lawsuit. In fraud, this can be when the plaintiff loses money due to a default that appears wrongfully caused.
• Discovery Rule: A narrow exception that delays accrual until the plaintiff knew or should have known the facts giving rise to the claim. It does not wait for identification of all wrongdoers or full details of the fraud.
• Inquiry Notice: If a reasonable person would investigate based on the facts known, the law treats the plaintiff as knowing what that investigation would reveal. Red flags start the clock.
• Fraudulent Concealment: An equitable estoppel that prevents a defendant from invoking limitations if they actively conceal the cause of action. Tolling ends once the plaintiff learns facts that would prompt a reasonable inquiry.
• Civil Conspiracy Accrual: Conspiracy is derivative of an underlying tort; it accrues when the underlying tort accrues and does not reset when a conspirator is identified later.
• Claim-Based Limitations: Limitations periods apply to claims, not individual defendants or theories. The same accrual date governs all who may be liable for the same wrong.
• Rule 12(b)(6) and Tolling: A complaint can be dismissed as time-barred if its own allegations show the claim accrued outside the limitations period and negate any plausible tolling.

Key Timeline

• January 2018: McGrath loans $250,000 to Booth (25% monthly interest; one month).
• February 2018: Booth defaults. Parties extend repayment; second $180,000 loan at 20% monthly interest.
• March 2018: Booth defaults again. Unpaid balance totals $528,500.
• November 2018: Desert Sun article details Booth’s criminal past and investor lawsuits, including Bighorn members.
• 2020: McGrath says he discovered Booth’s fraud; sues Booth in Massachusetts (default judgment in 2022).
• February 2022: McGrath alleges first learning of Cope’s deeper involvement from another Bighorn member.
• September 2023: McGrath sues Cope’s estate and executors in Texas.
• October 2025: Fifth Circuit affirms dismissal as time-barred.

Conclusion

McGrath v. Brewer reinforces a clear, claimant-focused rule in Texas fraud litigation: a borrower’s default and the resulting loss ordinarily start the limitations clock, even if the plaintiff does not yet know the full nature of the fraud or every participant. The discovery rule and fraudulent concealment are narrow doctrines that do not postpone accrual where the complaint itself shows inquiry notice. Civil conspiracy accrues with the underlying tort and cannot rescue otherwise time-barred fraud claims. Finally, federal courts may dismiss on the pleadings where the allegations negate tolling, and futile amendments will be denied.

The decision—an unpublished Fifth Circuit application of recent Texas Supreme Court authority like Triex—signals to fraud plaintiffs that waiting for greater clarity or assurance of repayment can be fatal. When defaults and red flags emerge, prompt investigation and timely filing are essential.