David F. Johnson presented “Bad Boys, Bad Boys: Ramification for Intentional Breaches of Fiduciary Duties by Trustees” to the Corpus Christi Estate Planning Council. This presentation addressed the following issues: pre-trial remedies; Texas Trust Code provisions dealing with removal, damages, attorney’s fees, receiverships, injunctions, exculpatory clauses, etc.; mental anguish damages
David F. Johnson, lead writer for The Fiduciary Litigator blog, presents the potential ramifications of a trustee’s intentional breach of fiduciary duty. His presentation covers the Texas Trust Code provisions (including removal, damages, attorney’s fees, receiverships, injunctions, and exculpatory clauses), fee forfeiture, disgorgement, punitive damages, and criminal statutes.
Who should
In In re Trust A & Trust C, a beneficiary sued a trustee for breach of fiduciary duty and sought a constructive trust over assets that were transferred out of the trust. 690 S.W.3d 80 (Tex. 2024). The trial court granted that relief. The court of appeals reversed, holding
David F. Johnson presented his speech on “Fiduciaryize Your Case” to the State Bar of Texas’s Advanced Civil Trial Course in Frisco, Texas, on July 11, 2024. This presentation covered what a fiduciary relationship means, the general duties owed by a fiduciary, typical fiduciary relationships, capacity issues, net-widening theories to
David Johnson, lead writer for The Fiduciary Litigator blog, discusses the main legal issues that arise when trusts terminate or there is a successor trustee, such as trustee resignation, trustee removal, who can be a successor trustee, co-trustee resignation issues, successor trustee duty to police, prior trustee duty to report
In Ahlgren v. Ahlgren, plaintiffs sued a defendant alleging that the defendant was a trustee of an oral trust who breached duties by refusing to return certain property. No. 13-22-00029-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 4182 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi – Edinburg, June 15, 2023, no pet. history). After the trial
In In re Mijares, a plaintiff claimed that a defendant defrauded him and breached fiduciary duties owed to him by charging improper, excessive, and unauthorized expenses to their medical practice, causing the plaintiff’s distributions from the practice to be reduced during the roughly six years that they practiced medicine together. Case No. 19-33121-hdh7, Adv. Proc. No. 19-03243,2022 Bankr. LEXIS 1542 (N.D. Tex. Bankr. June 1, 2022). The plaintiff sought a declaration that his claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty were not dischargeable pursuant to sections 523(a)(2)(A) and (a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code. The court found that the plaintiff held a valid claim against the defendant for fraud and that such claim was not dischargeable.
David F. Johnson co-presented “Minority Investor Rights in Private Companies: Buy-Sell Agreements, Court-Ordered Buyouts, Breach of Fiduciary Duty” for a nationwide audience for Stafford Webinars on January 20, 2021. David was honored to present with Peter A. Mahler and Peter J. Sluka from Farrell Fritz, PC from New York. The
In R.P. Small Corp. v. Land Dep’t, Inc., the plaintiff sued the defendant for breaching fiduciary duties due to a confidential relationship regarding oil and gas development. No. H-20-14902021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133695 (S. D. Tex. July 19, 2021). The plaintiff alleged that the defendant took advantage of his relationship, lied about his qualifications and experience, and overbilled and had self-dealing transactions. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on the economic loss rule, arguing that the plaintiff’s claims all arose from oral and written contracts. The federal district court denied the motion to dismiss. The court first discussed the economic loss rule:
Under Texas law, the “economic loss rule generally precludes recovery in tort for economic losses resulting from a party’s failure to perform a contract when the harm consists only of the economic loss of a contractual expectancy.” In determining if the economic loss rule applies, Texas courts look to both the “source of the alleged duty and the nature of the claimed injury.” “[A] party may elect a recovery in tort if the duty breached stands independent from the contractual undertaking, and the alleged damages are not solely the result of a bargained-for contractual benefit.” This is because “‘[t]ort obligations are in general obligations that are imposed by law—apart from and independent of promises made and therefore apart from the manifested intention of the parties—to avoid injury to others.’”