In McCoy v. McCoy, trust beneficiaries sued the trustee for breaching his fiduciary duties by pursing claims against a third party when they instructed him not to do so. No. 08-23-00119-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6604 (Tex. App.—El Paso August 25, 2023, no pet. history). The trustee filed a motion to dismiss under the
In McCoy v. McCoy, trust beneficiaries (daughters) sued the trustee (father) for maintaining a claim against a third party (mother) after they notified him of their opposition under section 113.028 of the Texas Trust Code. No. 08-23-00119-CV, 2023 Tex. App. LEXIS 6604 (Tex. App.—El Paso August 25, 2023, no pet. history). The trustee moved…
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.’”
In Marshall v. Marshall, a son, who was a trust beneficiary, sued his mother and brother alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and sought a declaratory judgment that they violated an in terrorem clause of the will. No. 14-18-00094-CV, No. 14-18-00095-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 423 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] January 21, 2021, no pet. history). The mother had created a similar Wyoming trust and then merged the original Texas trust into the Wyoming trust. The beneficiaries were essentially the same, but there were administrative differences, including who the trustees and successor trustees were and the wording of the in terrorem clauses. The mother also had a lawsuit filed in Wyoming to approve all of these changes, but did not serve the plaintiff. The defendants filed motions to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation Act (“TCPA”), the trial court denied them, and they appealed.
Continue Reading Court Holds That Allegations Related To A Trustee’s Filing Of Suit Did Fall Under The Protection Of The Texas Citizens Participation Act, That A Trustee’s Actions To Modify Administrative Terms Did Not Trigger An In Terrorem Clause, But That Other Actions Unrelated To Suit Filings Were Not Protected From The Act
In In re JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., trust beneficiaries sued the trustee for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty in Dallas, Texas. No. 05-17-01174-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1883 (Tex. App.—Dallas March 14, 2018, original proceeding). The settlor executed the trust agreement in New York, and it included the following forum-selection clause: “The validity…