BlogLine

Artful pleading counterfeited by Texas Supreme Court’s adoption of anti-fracturing rule

4/24/25

By: Emaan Ali Bangash and Patrick T. Mulry

In its recent ruling that the anti-fracturing rule applies broadly to professional malpractice cases, the Texas Supreme Court has affirmed the bedrock principle that the law should not reward artful pleading. While intermediate appellate courts in Texas had widely adopted the anti-fracturing rule, Pitts v. Rivas is the first time that the high court has expressly adopted it. Pitts v. Rivas, 2025 WL 568114 at *4 (Tex. 2025).  

The underlying case involved claims brought by Rivas, a home builder, against his accountant alleging accounting errors by Pitts which were severe enough to cause Rivas to be denied credit, overpay his taxes, and ultimately seek bankruptcy protection, damaging his business. The financial statements containing the alleged errors were provided in 2016, but Rivas did not file his lawsuit until August 2020.  

The anti-fracturing rule bars professional malpractice claims, such as Rivas’, from being converted into different claims like fraud, breach of contract, and/or breach of fiduciary duty. Because professional malpractice and other negligence causes of action have two-year statutes of limitations in Texas and breach of contract and fraud have four-year statutes of limitations, professional malpractice claims were subject to being recast when past their expiration date.  

The fundamental inquiry is directed to the crux or the gravamen of the claim: if the heart of the complaint is about the quality of the professional services provided, then it should be considered as a professional negligence claim, regardless of attempts to repackage the allegations under the banner of additional claims. Such claims cannot simply be re-labeled to avoid limitations and gain a litigation advantage. While the rule developed primarily in legal malpractice cases, the Court has shown that it is equally applicable to claims of professional negligence in other industries.  

Pitts is a step towards averting kitchen-sink professional malpractice litigation across the board. Continuing in the Texas Supreme Court’s line of cases that malign artful pleading, it may also be a harbinger of the court’s judicial philosophy regarding other limitations-avoidance strategies, regardless of the area of law.  

For more information, please contact Patrick Mulry, Emaan Ali Bangash or your local FMG attorney. 

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.