of equity. “Despite the merger doctrine, prior agreements are not merged into a realty deed [that] is signed due to fraud, accident, or mistake.” Geodyne Energy Income Prod. P’ship I-E v. Newton Corp., 161 S.W.3d 482, 487 (Tex.2005). In equity, Texas law would allow the Cades to sue to reform the deed based, on mutual mistake, but they must bring that claim within the four-year statute of limitations. For the reasons the Court explains, I agree that the law charges the Cades with knowledge of the deed’s contents as of the date they signed it, so they cannot rely on the discovery rule to toll the statute of limitations, which expired before they filed suit to reform the deed in February 2011. See Nat’l Prop. Holdings, L.P. v. Westergren, 453 S.W.3d 419, 425 (Tex.2015) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>) (quoting El Paso Field Servs., L.P. v. MasTec
holding that the law presumes that a party knows and accepts the terms of a contract the party signs andit is not the courts role to protect parties from their own agreements  holding that when a contract is signed by one party but not the other the manifestation of consent by the nonsigning party is sufficient to bind that party holding that prevailing party was entitled to attorneys fees under an option contract which had expired prior to litigation because the parties were litigating their performance under the terms of the contract holding that when a court accepts a fixed plea agreement it is bound by the agreements terms holding that an arbitration agreement enforceable against party who signed the agreement even where the other party did not sign it because generally it is enough that the party against whom the contract is sought to be enforced signs it