In White v. White, plaintiffs sued their uncles and their aunts for breaches of fiduciary duties related to the uncles’ individual trusts. No. 03-24-00110-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 3643 (Tex. App.—Austin May 29, 2025, no pet.). Plaintiffs allege that the uncles conveyed trust property to themselves and their wives in excess of distribution limits, and that the uncles adopted an adult man to become their heir and inherit from the trusts instead of plaintiffs. In response, the uncles and aunts filed motions for sanctions against plaintiffs. The plaintiffs moved to dismiss the requests for sanctions under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA), which the trial court denied.

The court of appeals held that the TCPA action did not apply because the motions for sanctions were not “legal actions” as defined by the TCPA because they do not present substantive underlying claims for relief but are instead ancillary to the substantive claims in the case. The court relied on recent Texas Supreme Court precedent clarifying that a “legal action” under the TCPA refers to filings that commence or materially amend a proceeding on a substantive legal claim, and explicitly excludes procedural motions, such as motions for sanctions, that do not seek legal, equitable, or declaratory relief.

Therefore, the TCPA’s expedited dismissal process did not apply to the motions.

The court also addressed whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue the uncles, who were the trustees of the individual trusts. The court determined that Texas law allows contingent beneficiaries to bring such actions, and the plaintiffs were found to have standing because they held a contingent interest in the trusts at the time of the alleged misconduct. The court held:

 Beau and Mac each have a power of appointment, but in lieu of their exercising that right, the trust property passes to the settlors’—Beau and Mac’s parents’—then-surviving grandchildren, which includes Plaintiffs. Texas allows a contingent beneficiary to sue a trustee for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs held a contingent interest in each trust at the time of the alleged misconduct and are thus “sufficiently ‘interested'” to sue “for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty that reduces funds flowing into the trust.”

Id. The trial court’s order denying the plaintiffs’ TCPA motion to dismiss the motions for sanctions was affirmed.