Family members often assume they have years to investigate potential breaches of fiduciary duty. However, they often face a race against time to pursue legal remedies. The statute of limitations can create unexpected traps for beneficiaries who delay in asserting their rights.
The timing is even more complex when those administering assets die before rendering final accountings. This leaves beneficiaries to piece together decades of potential mismanagement. Different types of breaches may trigger limitations periods at different times, creating a patchwork of viable and time-barred claims within the same lawsuit.
The Estate of Erwin, 2021 WL 6062814 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi December 29, 2021, no pet.) case provides an opportunity to examine how Texas courts determine when various statute of limitations periods begin running for different types of trust-related claims and the role that discovery rules and fraudulent concealment play in protecting beneficiaries.
Facts & Procedural History
C.E. passed away in October 1993. He was survived by his wife Bettye and three children: daughter Peggy, son Clarence Jr., and daughter Carolyn Sue.
C.E.’s will appointed Bettye as independent administrator of his estate and established two testamentary trusts from the remainder property after specific bequests. Trust A was designed to receive assets equal to the maximum federal estate tax exemption (approximately $600,000 in 1993), while Trust B would receive any remaining estate property.
Both trusts named Bettye as sole trustee, with American Bank of Commerce designated as successor trustee if Bettye became unable to serve. Trust A required net income to be paid to Bettye annually but prohibited her from invading the principal. Upon Bettye’s death, Trust A’s remainder would be distributed equally among C.E.’s children. Trust B allowed Bettye broader access to principal for maintaining her standard of living and granted her a power of appointment over the remainder.
The will was admitted to probate in November 1993. Bettye filed an inventory showing the estate’s value at approximately $133,736. However, the estate remained open with no further activity until 2017. During this period, real property records from 1996 through 2014 show that Bettye executed various deeds signing “individually and as trustee of testamentary Trusts A and B under the will of C.E.,” suggesting she was acting in her trustee capacity.
Bettye passed away in August 2016, and her daughter Peggy was appointed administrator of Bettye’s estate. In September 2017, Peggy also sought appointment as successor administrator of C.E.’s estate, which the court granted. Prior to Bettye’s death, both Clarence Jr. and Carolyn Sue had passed away, leaving Clarence Jr.’s children (Trey, Will, and Nannie) as remainder beneficiaries of the trusts through representation.
In June 2018, Trey filed suit against Peggy seeking probate litigation remedies including an accounting of C.E.’s estate and the testamentary trusts, removal of Peggy as administrator, and damages for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Texas Theft Liability Act. The lawsuit alleged that Bettye had breached her fiduciary duties by failing to maintain proper trust accountings, improperly commingling trust assets with her personal property, and converting trust assets for her personal benefit.
Peggy filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that all claims were barred by applicable statutes of limitations, contending that the limitations periods began running when C.E.’s will was admitted to probate in 1993. The trial court granted Peggy’s motion and dismissed all claims, prompting the appeal that resulted in this decision.
What Statutes of Limitations Apply to Trust-Related Claims?
The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code establishes different limitations periods for various causes of action that commonly arise in trust litigation.
Breach of fiduciary duty claims must be brought within four years under Section 16.004(a)(5). Unjust enrichment and violations of the Texas Theft Liability Act carry two-year limitations periods under Section 16.003(a). Claims under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act have a four-year limitations period under Business and Commerce Code Section 24.010(a)(1).
These statutes generally require that claims be filed within the specified period after the cause of action “accrues.” Under Texas law, a cause of action typically accrues when a wrongful act causes a legal injury, and determining the accrual date is normally a question of law. However, two doctrines can delay accrual or toll the limitations period: the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment.
The discovery rule applies categorically to injuries that are both inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable. When applicable, the discovery rule defers accrual until the injury was or could have been reasonably discovered through due diligence. For fiduciary duty claims specifically, beneficiaries are generally unable to inquire into the fiduciary’s actions or unaware of the need to do so during the relationship.
Fraudulent concealment operates as an equitable doctrine that tolls limitations until fraud is discovered or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence. The plaintiff must establish that the defendant actually knew the plaintiff was wronged and concealed that fact to deceive the plaintiff. When a fiduciary has a duty to disclose material facts, silence may constitute sufficient concealment to toll the limitations period.
Do Discovery Rules Apply Differently to Probate-Related Claims?
Texas courts have generally refused to apply the discovery rule to claims arising out of probate proceedings, even when fraud is alleged, based on strong public policy favoring finality in estate administration. However, the court must examine the conduct forming the genesis of each cause of action to determine the proper limitations analysis.
In the Estate of Erwin case, the administrator argued that the limitations period for all claims began when C.E.’s will was admitted to probate in 1993, relying on cases emphasizing legislative concern for orderly estate administration. However, the court distinguished between claims that arise directly from probate proceedings versus claims arising from the separate administration of testamentary trusts.
The court noted that the beneficiaries’ claims did not “arise out of a probate proceeding” but rather from Bettye’s alleged misadministration of the trusts after they were created. While the trusts were established through C.E.’s will, their ongoing administration constituted separate fiduciary relationships between Bettye as trustee and the remainder beneficiaries.
This distinction proves important because testamentary trust administration involves ongoing fiduciary duties that extend well beyond the initial probate of the will that created the trust. Unlike claims challenging will validity or estate distribution, trust administration claims involve continuing relationships where misconduct may occur years or decades after the will’s admission to probate.
When Do Different Types of Trust Breaches Trigger Limitations Periods?
The court recognized that different types of fiduciary breaches may trigger limitations periods at different times, even within the same trust relationship. This nuanced approach requires examining each alleged breach separately to determine when the cause of action accrued.
For claims based on Bettye’s failure to maintain proper trust accountings and provide annual statements, the court found that these breaches were apparent and could not be ignored. The trust terms required annual statements, and beneficiaries had constructive notice of this requirement through the probate proceedings. Since Bettye never provided the required statements, the limitations period began running when the first statement should have been issued, making these claims time-barred.
However, claims based on Bettye’s alleged misappropriation or mismanagement of trust assets presented different timing issues. The court concluded that such misconduct constituted separate breaches from the accounting failures. The trust terms prohibited Bettye from invading Trust A’s corpus for her own benefit, limiting her to income distributions only.
Based on the fiduciary relationship between Bettye and the beneficiaries, both the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment tolled the limitations period for misappropriation claims. Nothing in the record demonstrated that Bettye’s alleged misconduct was so apparent that it could not be ignored. As trustee, Bettye was under a duty to disclose material facts to beneficiaries, and her signing of real property documents “as trustee” would likely have led beneficiaries to believe she was acting in good faith.
How Does Beneficiary Status Affect the Discovery Rule Analysis?
The court emphasized that beneficiaries of testamentary trusts occupy a unique position regarding their ability to discover trustee misconduct. Unlike parties to arm’s length transactions, trust beneficiaries are typically unable to inquire into the trustee’s actions or unaware of the need to do so during the ongoing fiduciary relationship.
The court noted that beneficiaries were “relieved of the responsibility of diligent inquiry into Bettye’s conduct” because they were “either unable to inquire into Bettye’s actions or unaware of the need to do so.” This protection continues until misconduct becomes apparent and can no longer be ignored, regardless of the fiduciary relationship’s nature.
However, this protection has limits. Once facts become apparent that would cause a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry, the discovery rule no longer provides protection. The court distinguished between obvious breaches (like failure to provide required statements) and concealed breaches (like secret misappropriation of assets) in determining when beneficiaries should reasonably have discovered potential claims.
The timing analysis also considered when beneficiaries would naturally become aware of trust administration issues. For Trust A, which was structured to provide remainder distributions to C.E.’s children upon Bettye’s death, the beneficiaries would not expect to receive detailed information about trust assets until Bettye’s death triggered the distribution obligation.
What Role Does Fraudulent Concealment Play in Trust Cases?
Fraudulent concealment proved particularly relevant to the misappropriation claims in Estate of Erwin. The doctrine requires proof that the defendant actually knew the plaintiff was wronged and concealed that fact to deceive the plaintiff. When a fiduciary has a duty to disclose material facts, silence alone may constitute sufficient concealment.
The court found that Bettye, as trustee, was under a duty to fully disclose all material facts to the trust beneficiaries. Evidence suggested that Bettye may have destroyed financial records before her death, with her daughter testifying that Bettye “cleaned out all her records” because she didn’t want her daughter to have to deal with them. This destruction could constitute evidence of concealment designed to hide misconduct from beneficiaries.
The administrator argued that beneficiaries could have discovered the misconduct by requesting annual trust accountings, which would have revealed that Bettye treated certain assets as personal property rather than trust assets. However, the court found this argument based on speculation about what Bettye would have disclosed in hypothetical accountings she never provided.
Taking all evidence in the light most favorable to the beneficiaries, the court concluded that questions of fact existed regarding whether Bettye concealed her misconduct through destruction of records and failure to disclose material information about trust administration. These fact questions precluded summary judgment on the fraudulent concealment issue.
How Do Courts Handle Claims Against Successor Fiduciaries?
The case also addressed limitations issues for claims against Peggy as successor administrator of C.E.’s estate. Since Peggy was not appointed successor administrator until September 2017, and the lawsuit was filed in June 2018, all claims against her fell well within the applicable limitations periods.
This timing illustrates an important principle: limitations periods for claims against successor fiduciaries begin running from the successor’s misconduct, not from the original fiduciary’s appointment or initial breaches. Each fiduciary’s actions must be evaluated separately for limitations purposes.
The court noted that successor administrators and trustees have independent duties that may give rise to separate claims. For example, a successor administrator might breach fiduciary duties by failing to pursue claims the estate has against the previous administrator’s estate or by transferring estate assets improperly.
What Accounting Duties Survive Limitations Periods?
Even where monetary claims for breach of fiduciary duty may be time-barred, beneficiaries may retain rights to compel trust accountings. The court found that Peggy, as administrator of Bettye’s estate, assumed responsibility for rendering a final accounting of the trust administration even though she was never appointed successor trustee.
Under Property Code Section 113.151(a), beneficiaries may demand written trust accountings covering all transactions since the last accounting or trust creation. The statute provides enforcement mechanisms when trustees refuse to provide required accountings. The court found no authority holding that limitations periods for monetary damages also bar beneficiaries from seeking to compel accountings.
This distinction between monetary recovery and equitable relief reflects the ongoing supervisory role courts play in trust administration. Even when specific breaches may be time-barred for damages purposes, courts retain authority to ensure proper trust accounting and administration going forward.
The Takeaway
The Estate of Erwin decision establishes that limitations periods for testamentary trust claims do not automatically begin running when the underlying will is admitted to probate, but instead depend on the specific nature of each alleged breach and when it occurred or should have been discovered. Claims based on obvious failures like missing required annual statements may be time-barred relatively quickly, while claims based on concealed misconduct like asset misappropriation may remain viable for years due to discovery rule protection and fraudulent concealment tolling. The decision recognizes that trust beneficiaries occupy a unique position where they cannot reasonably be expected to monitor ongoing trustee conduct and are entitled to rely on the trustee’s duty of full disclosure. However, this protection has limits, and beneficiaries must act promptly once misconduct becomes apparent or discoverable through reasonable inquiry. The ruling also preserves beneficiaries’ rights to compel trust accountings even when monetary claims may be time-barred, reflecting courts’ continuing supervisory authority over trust administration regardless of limitations periods for damages.
Do you need help with a probate matter in San Antonio or the surrounding area? We are San Antonio probate attorneys. We help clients navigate the probate process. Call today for a free confidential consultation, (210) 239-8518.
Our San Antonio Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with disputes over financial accounts. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters. Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer
The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
