In In re Estate of Maun, a brother sued his sister’s estate for her performance as executrix of their mother’s estate since the late 1980s. No. 13-22-00576-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 52 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi January 4, 2024, no pet. history). The trial court entered summary judgment for the defendant
Court Affirmed The Trial Court’s Refusal To Probate A Will Due To The Statute Of Limitations
In In re Est. of Hartwell, a trial court granted summary judgment that the applicant to probate a will was not entitled to do so due to the statute of limitations. No. 06-23-00054-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 166 (Tex. App.—Texarkana December 6, 2023, no pet. history). The decedent died
The Texas Supreme Court Affirms A Summary Judgment For A Fiduciary Defendant Based On The Statute Of Limitations And The Duty To Use Reasonable Diligence To Discover Claims
The Court noted that a claim generally accrues when the defendant’s wrongful conduct causes the claimant to suffer a legal injury. Id. The Court also noted that the discovery rule can defer accrual of limitations:
In Marcus & Millichap Real Est. Inv. Servs. of Nev. v. Triex Tex. Holdings, LLC, Triex purchased a gas station in 2008 from Hamilton Holdings. No. 21-0913, 2023 Tex. LEXIS 22 (Tex. January 13, 2023) (per curiam). Both the buyer and seller used Marcus & Millichap as their broker for the transaction. In 2012, the operator of the gas station defaulted on the lease. A little over three years later, Triex sued Hamilton Holdings and others for breach of contract, fraud, and related torts. After some discovery, Triex added Marcus & Millichap to the lawsuit in March 2017 and asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud by nondisclosure, and conspiracy. Marcus & Millichap moved for summary judgment, arguing that Triex’s claims were time-barred. The trial court granted the motion, and the court of appeals reversed and remanded, concluding that a fact issue existed as to whether Triex “knew or should have known on [December 1, 2012,] that the injury was the result of wrongful acts committed by Marcus & Millichap.” The Texas Supreme Court granted review.
New Texas Bill Would Provide Qualified Release Relief To Trustees Who Deliver Adequate Accountings Without A Timely Objection By The Beneficiary
A recent bill (H.B. 1552) has been submitted that would provide a trustee release relief for transactions described in an accounting where a beneficiary fails to timely object to the accounting and there is no fraud, intentional misrepresentation, or material omission. A similar bill was introduced in 2021, but the Legislature did not pass it. The new bill provides:
Court Reversed Order Admitting A Will To Probate As A Muniment Of Title Due To The Statute Of Limitations
In Marshall v. Estate of Freeman, a trial court’s order admitting a will as a muniment of title forty-one years after the testator’s death was reversed. No. 03-20-00449-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 2857 (Tex. App.—Austin April 29, 2022, no pet. history).
Texas Supreme Court Dismisses Claims By Co-Trustee And Beneficiary Due To Statute Of Limitations And Clarifies That An Unnamed Contingent Beneficiary Can Have Standing To Sue
In Berry v. Berry, one brother sued his other three brothers regarding the leasing of a family ranch. No. 20-0687, 2022 Tex. LEXIS 405 (Tex. May 13, 2022). The family ranch was owned by a limited partnership. The largest limited partner was a trust, and all four brothers were trustees of the trust. A family business, which the plaintiff was no longer an owner of, used the family ranch under an alleged oral lease. The plaintiff alleged that the oral lease was for too long a period and was for inadequate lease payments. The plaintiff filed suit in 2016 and complained about the time period of 2000-2007. The plaintiff sued in his capacity as a co-trustee of the trust and as a beneficiary of the trust. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants based on the statute of limitations. The court of appeals reversed.
Court Held That A Beneficiary’s Claims Against The Estate Of The Trustee Was Not Barred By Limitations
In Estate of Erwin, a husband died leaving some property to his wife and creating two trusts, naming his wife as the trustee and beneficiary with his children as remainder beneficiaries. No. 13-20-00301-CV, 2021 Tex. App. LEXIS 10160 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi December 29, 2021, no pet.). The wife commingled property and made other transfers of property. She then died, and one of her children became the successor administrator of the husband’s estate and the administrator of the mother’s estate.
Court Held A Claim For An Heirship Proceeding Was Barred By Limitations Even Though A New Statute Provides For No Limitations For Heirship Proceedings
In the Estate of Trickett, two petitioners filed an heirship proceeding to establish their status as the sole heirs and rightful owners of a royalty interest. No. 13-19-00154-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 3949 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi May 14, 2020, no pet. history). Others opposed the application as they claimed
Court Reverses Summary Judgment On Breach Of Fiduciary Duty Claim Because There Was A Fact Issue On The Running Of The Statute Of Limitations
In Melton v. Waddell, a sister sued her brother for breach of fiduciary duty for misapplying funds in a joint account and not properly allocating revenues from real estate that they owned as tenants in common. No. 07-18-00105-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 9531 (Tex. App.—Amarillo October 30, 2019, no
Statute of Limitations Barred Estate Representative’s Claim To Void Beneficiary Designations
In Sanders v. Hathaway, the decedent’s estate’s representative sued her sister for various claims arising from the decedent’s beneficiary designation changes, deed transfers, and accounts payable on death changes that benefited the sister. No. 01-18-00661-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 5708 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 9, 2019, no pet. history). The sister alleged that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The trial court granted summary judgment for the sister, and the representative appealed. The court of appeals first held that limitations had run on the claims: