Panel debates whether sinkholes and an engineer's inspection put Chang on inquiry notice and triggered the limitations clock

A central point in oral argument was whether Chang's tort claims were time-barred. Appellant's counsel John Yip argued the discovery rule requires that a claim accrues only after the plaintiff discovers or reasonably could have discovered all essential elements, including seller's actual knowledge, and that genuine issues of material fact exist about when Chang could have learned seller knowledge.

"The discovery rule holds until the plaintiff discovers or reasonably could have discovered all the essential elements of the cause of action," Yip said, arguing that post-closing investigation and geotechnical work show Chang did not learn the elements immediately. Respondent counsel Victoria Molina urged the panel that Chang saw sinkholes and hired an engineering firm on 01/29/2021 and that the later lawsuit filing in October 2024 fell beyond the three-year window. "It is undisputed that mister Chang saw the sinkholes and hire an engineering firm in January 2021, and that he filed his lawsuit in October 2024," Molina said, pressing that inquiry notice and the inquiry-notice test from Greene require charging the plaintiff with facts a reasonable inquiry would have disclosed.

Panel members probed whether inquiry notice is instantaneous or whether the plaintiff is allowed reasonable time to investigate facts that may take months or years to develop. One judge noted investigations can be slow and asked whether the record shows the inquiry was unreasonable or dilatory; the judges debated whether the trial record contained sufficient evidence to decide the limitations question on summary judgment.

The court took the case under advisement after hearing argument; no ruling was announced.