CROSSOVER: Hiring Counsel Does Not Defeat Unsound-Mind Tolling: Capacity to Participate, Not Mere Access to Court, Controls

Team DGR, LLC v. Kang, 06-26-00077-CV, November 02, 2026.

On appeal from 188th District Court, Gregg County, Texas

Synopsis

A defendant seeking traditional summary judgment on limitations must conclusively negate a properly raised claim of unsound-mind tolling under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.001. Retaining counsel and pursuing a claim during the limitations period do not, standing alone, establish that the plaintiff could participate in, control, or understand the litigation when evidence of cognitive impairment raises a genuine fact issue.

Relevance to Family Law

Although Team DGR arose from a personal-injury action, its burden-of-proof analysis carries directly into Texas divorce, custody, and marital-property litigation involving limitations-based claims. A spouse may invoke § 16.001 in connection with claims for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, reimbursement-related theories, or other civil causes of action litigated alongside or after a divorce. The decision also matters when cognitive impairment affects a party’s ability to provide information, understand proceedings, evaluate settlement terms, or direct counsel. Family-law practitioners should not equate representation by counsel, participation in discovery, or performance of ordinary tasks with conclusive proof of the capacity required under the unsound-mind tolling standard.

The opinion does not hold that § 16.001 tolls every deadline arising under the Texas Family Code. Whether tolling applies depends on the governing statute, the nature of the deadline, and any statute-specific limitations language. Nor does the opinion establish a general test for legal competency, contractual capacity, testamentary capacity, or the appointment of a guardian ad litem. Its central lesson is procedural: when a traditional summary-judgment movant relies on limitations, the movant must address and conclusively negate a properly raised tolling doctrine.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

On March 8, 2022, Steven Craig Stotts was hauling race cars for Team DGR, LLC, when he struck Young Mo Kang’s vehicle from behind. Kang allegedly sustained serious injuries, including head trauma. He filed a personal-injury action against Team DGR on January 17, 2025—more than two years after the accident.

Team DGR pleaded limitations and moved for traditional summary judgment under the two-year statute of limitations applicable to personal-injury claims. Kang responded that limitations was tolled under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.001 because the accident left him of unsound mind.

The summary-judgment record showed that Kang arrived at the emergency room with altered mental status and initially did not respond to questions in either English or Korean. He later regained the ability to speak and communicate about his pain, and he was discharged after being stabilized. Medical imaging reflected mild soft-tissue swelling in the right occipital scalp.

Kang also presented an affidavit from Dr. Chang B. Shin, a neurologist who had treated him since April 2022. Dr. Shin described confusion, impaired memory, poor judgment, slowed cognitive processing, depression, anxiety, and other symptoms following the accident. According to Dr. Shin, Kang’s traumatic brain injury and resulting cognitive impairments significantly affected his ability to understand and independently manage complex personal or legal matters for a substantial period after the collision.

Team DGR relied in part on evidence that Kang retained counsel shortly after the accident and pursued the claim through counsel during the limitations period. It attached letters of representation dated March 22, 2022, and deposition testimony concerning activities Kang performed after the accident, including renting and driving a vehicle.

The trial court denied Team DGR’s traditional motion for summary judgment and certified a controlling legal question for permissive appeal. The Sixth Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court correctly denied the motion.

Issues Decided

• Whether a defendant moving for traditional summary judgment on limitations must conclusively negate a properly raised claim of unsound-mind tolling under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.001.

• Whether retaining counsel and pursuing a claim through counsel during the limitations period conclusively establish that a plaintiff was mentally capable of participating in, controlling, or understanding the litigation.

• Whether the medical and factual evidence concerning Kang’s post-accident cognitive impairments prevented Team DGR from conclusively negating unsound-mind tolling.

Rules Applied

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003 generally establishes a two-year limitations period for personal-injury claims. Section 16.001 provides disability-based tolling for a person who is of unsound mind when the limitations period begins, excluding the period of disability from the limitations calculation.

Under Draughon v. Johnson, 631 S.W.3d 81 (Tex. 2021), a defendant seeking traditional summary judgment on limitations must conclusively prove when the cause of action accrued and that suit was filed after the applicable limitations period expired. The defendant also must conclusively negate properly raised matters that affect which days count toward limitations, including the discovery rule and statutory tolling doctrines.

The burden does not shift merely because the plaintiff would bear the burden of proving tolling at trial. In the traditional-summary-judgment context, the movant must first establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. A defendant wishing to challenge the absence of evidence on an issue for which the plaintiff bears the trial burden may use the no-evidence summary-judgment procedure when procedurally available.

Under Ruiz v. Conoco, Inc., 868 S.W.2d 752 (Tex. 1993), the unsound-mind inquiry focuses on whether the plaintiff could participate in, control, or understand the progression and disposition of the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s ability to provide information and testify is an important consideration. Mere access to the courts is not dispositive.

The court also relied on authorities recognizing that § 16.001 is not limited to persons formally adjudicated incompetent. Partial or diminished cognitive capacity may qualify if it leaves the person unable to pursue or meaningfully participate in the litigation.

Application

Team DGR established that the accident occurred on March 8, 2022, and that Kang did not file suit until January 17, 2025. But because Kang properly raised § 16.001 tolling, establishing those dates did not complete Team DGR’s traditional-summary-judgment burden. Team DGR also had to conclusively negate Kang’s alleged mental incapacity.

The court rejected the proposition that retaining counsel shortly after the accident necessarily demonstrated a sound mind. Representation may establish access to legal assistance, but access is not the statutory test. The relevant inquiry is whether Kang could understand the litigation and meaningfully participate in or control its progression and disposition.

Kang’s medical evidence created a conflict that could not be resolved through traditional summary judgment. His emergency-room records documented altered mental status immediately after the collision. More significantly, Dr. Shin described cognitive symptoms extending beyond the emergency-room encounter, including memory impairment, confusion, reduced processing speed, and impaired judgment. Dr. Shin connected those symptoms to Kang’s ability to understand and manage complex personal and legal matters.

Evidence that Kang communicated with counsel, pursued the claim, rented a vehicle, drove, or performed other ordinary activities could support an argument that he remained functional. But functional capacity in selected activities did not conclusively establish the particular capacity addressed by § 16.001. Nor did it eliminate the competing medical evidence concerning his ability to understand, direct, and participate in litigation.

Because the evidence permitted differing conclusions about Kang’s mental capacity during the relevant period, Team DGR did not conclusively negate tolling. The court therefore did not shift the traditional-summary-judgment burden to Kang or weigh the competing evidence as a factfinder.

Holding

The court held that a defendant seeking traditional summary judgment on limitations must conclusively negate unsound-mind tolling when the plaintiff properly raises § 16.001. Proof of accrual and a facially late filing is insufficient if a statutory tolling issue remains unresolved.

The court further held that retaining counsel and pursuing a claim through counsel do not conclusively establish the capacity to participate in, control, or understand litigation. Those facts concern access to the courts but do not necessarily answer the functional-capacity inquiry required by Ruiz.

Finally, the court concluded that the medical evidence of Kang’s post-accident cognitive impairment raised a fact issue concerning unsound-mind tolling. Team DGR therefore failed to establish its limitations defense as a matter of law, and the trial court correctly denied traditional summary judgment.

Practical Application

In a divorce involving fraud, conversion, or breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, counsel should identify potential tolling issues before filing or responding to a limitations motion. If a spouse alleges traumatic brain injury, dementia, severe psychiatric impairment, medication-related cognitive dysfunction, or another condition affecting litigation capacity, the limitations analysis cannot stop with evidence that the spouse retained counsel or participated in the divorce.

The same principle may arise in post-divorce property litigation. For example, a former spouse seeking relief concerning undisclosed or undivided property may face a limitations defense. If unsound-mind tolling is properly raised and legally available for the particular claim, a traditional-summary-judgment movant must address the claimant’s actual capacity during the relevant period rather than relying exclusively on the existence of counsel or prior court filings.

In custody litigation, the opinion may be relevant when civil claims with limitations periods accompany a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Section 16.001 should not be assumed to alter Family Code deadlines, jurisdictional requirements, or statutory timetables. Counsel must analyze each deadline independently.

Practitioners also should distinguish litigation activity from litigation capacity. Signing pleadings, appearing for a deposition, exchanging communications with counsel, or performing routine financial and household tasks may be probative, but none is automatically dispositive. The evidentiary focus should remain on whether the person could receive advice, supply reliable information, evaluate options, make informed decisions, and understand the progression and consequences of the proceeding.

Finally, motion selection matters. A traditional limitations motion places the burden on the movant to conclusively negate properly raised tolling. If the objective is to challenge the nonmovant’s lack of evidence on an issue for which that party bears the burden at trial, counsel should evaluate whether a no-evidence motion is appropriate after an adequate time for discovery.

Checklists

Evaluating a Potential Unsound-Mind Tolling Claim

• Identify the specific claim and its governing limitations statute.
• Determine the accrual date and calculate the facial limitations deadline.
• Confirm whether § 16.001 applies to the particular cause of action and deadline.
• Determine whether the alleged disability existed when limitations began to run.
• Establish the duration of any claimed period of incapacity.
• Obtain contemporaneous medical, psychiatric, neurological, and pharmacy records.
• Identify evidence concerning the client’s ability to understand and manage complex matters.
• Assess whether the client could provide reliable information, evaluate advice, testify, and direct counsel.
• Separate evidence of general functionality from evidence of litigation-specific capacity.
• Consider whether expert testimony is needed to connect the condition to the relevant functional limitations.

Moving for Summary Judgment on Limitations

• Plead limitations as an affirmative defense.
• Prove the accrual date conclusively.
• Prove the date suit was filed.
• Identify every tolling doctrine or accrual exception properly raised by the opposing party.
• Address unsound-mind tolling with evidence directed to the entire relevant period.
• Do not rely solely on the opposing party’s retention of counsel.
• Do not treat isolated daily activities as conclusive proof of litigation capacity.
• Address medical opinions with admissible counterevidence when necessary.
• Decide whether to file a traditional motion, a no-evidence motion, or both.
• State clearly which burdens arise under each ground.
• Avoid asking the trial court to weigh conflicting medical evidence at the summary-judgment stage.

Opposing a Traditional Limitations Motion

• Plead or otherwise timely raise § 16.001 tolling.
• Identify the precise period during which the client allegedly was of unsound mind.
• Submit specific facts rather than relying only on a diagnosis.
• Connect cognitive symptoms to the ability to understand, participate in, and control litigation.
• Explain any apparent functionality, including employment, driving, financial transactions, or communications with counsel.
• Show why representation by counsel did not resolve the client’s functional limitations.
• Obtain a fact-based expert opinion addressing the relevant legal-capacity factors.
• Authenticate and attach pertinent medical records.
• Emphasize that the traditional movant retains the burden to negate tolling conclusively.
• Object when the movant attempts to shift the burden before establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Managing Capacity Issues in Family-Law Litigation

• Evaluate capacity concerns at intake and throughout the representation.
• Document how the client receives, processes, and retains legal advice.
• Use qualified interpreters when language access may affect the assessment.
• Avoid conflating limited English proficiency with cognitive incapacity.
• Consider whether additional procedural protections are required.
• Preserve medical and functional evidence relevant to disputed deadlines.
• Analyze separately any concerns involving contractual capacity, settlement authority, guardianship, or competency.
• Confirm that any settlement is understood and authorized by the client.
• Create a record supporting the client’s ability—or inability—to make informed litigation decisions.

Citation

Team DGR, LLC v. Kang, No. 06-26-00077-CV, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Texarkana Nov. 2, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion

Family Law Crossover

The crossover rule is the allocation of burdens in a traditional summary-judgment proceeding. When a party seeks traditional summary judgment on limitations, that party must conclusively establish the limitations defense and conclusively negate any properly raised statutory tolling doctrine. If unsound-mind tolling is raised, the relevant inquiry is whether the claimant had the functional capacity to participate in, control, and understand the litigation—not merely whether the claimant retained a lawyer or gained access to the courts.

In Texas family-law practice, the mechanism may arise when a divorce or post-divorce proceeding includes independent civil claims subject to limitations, such as fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, or disputes involving separate or undivided property. It may also arise when such claims are severed from the divorce or litigated in a related proceeding. Counsel must first determine whether § 16.001 legally applies to the specific claim and deadline. If it does, evidence of representation, filings, discovery responses, or isolated functional activity may be relevant, but it will not necessarily support traditional summary judgment when competent evidence raises a genuine dispute about the person’s capacity to understand and direct the litigation.

~~b90b245a-ec95-4491-bf4a-eec1b7e36797~~