With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Courseview, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 158 Tex. 397, 312 S.W.2d 197, 205 (1957); see Kerlin v. Sauceda, 263 S.W.3d 920, 925 (Tex.2008) (requiring “exercise of reasonable diligence”). Of course, here, the parties were not transacting on an arm’s-length basis, because they were within a fiduciary relationship. While “diligence in discovering the breach of fiduciary duty or fraud is required” in a fiduciary relationship as in an arm’s-length relationship, nonetheless, the presence of a fiduciary relationship “affects ... the application of the rule.” G. Prop. Mgmt., Ltd. v. Multivest Fin. Servs. of Tex., Inc., 219 S.W.3d 37, 49 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2006, no pet.); Douglass v. Langehennig (In re Douglass), Adv. No. 08-1007, 2008 WL 2944568, at *12 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. July 25, 2008) (<HOLDING>). “Facts which might ordinarily require

A: recognizing an exception to the twoyear time bar imposed on rule 3850 claims when the claim asserted is based on facts that were unknown to the movant and could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence
B: holding that affidavit from a new witness was not newly discovered evidence because trial counsel knew of the existence of the witness before trial trial counsel with due diligence could have discovered the evidence
C: holding that fiduciary relationship should be a consideration in determining whether the fraud might have been discovered through reasonable diligence quoting powers v mcdaniel 785 sw2d 915 918 texappsan antonio 1990 writ de nied
D: holding that posttrial discovery of asserted newly discovered evidence did not satisfy the requirement that the evidence must be such as with reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and produced at trial
C.