“that an implied warranty to repair or modify existing tangible goods or property in a good and workmanlike manner is available to consumers suing under the DTPA.” Id. at 358-54. Although Nelda’s petition alleged a claim for breach of a common law implied warranty and a claim for breach of the DTPA implied warranty, “consumers of services do not have the protection of a ... common law implied warranty scheme.” See id. at 353. Following Melody Home, a claim for such a breach is available under the DTPA. Accordingly, we conclude the DTPA’s two-year statute of limitations applies. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.565 (Vernon 2002) (limitations); see also Koehler v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 05-98-01325-CV, 2001 WL 611453, at *5 (Tex.App.-Dallas June 6, 2001, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); Howard v. Fiesta Tex. Show Park, Inc., 980
holding statute of limitations for dtpa action including claim for breach of express or implied warranty under the dtpa is two years holding that an implied warranty to perform services in a good and workmanlike manner is an action available under the dtpa and is subject to the twoyear limitations provided by the dtpa holding plaintiff had to commence his breach of implied warranty action under the dtpa within two years because tjhis special statute of limitations denies plaintiffs alternative proposal of entitlement to recover for breach of the common law implied warranty holding that texas law does not recognize an implied warranty that services incidental to helicopter maintenance will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner holding that because the dtpa is the only way of pursuing an implied warranty claim for repairs to existing tangible goods such a claim must necessarily be brought within the twoyear dtpa limitations period