Reported / Citable
Background
W.L. Garrison created the Garrison Family Trust in 1984, naming Coby Todd Bausch and Lacy Paige Brooks as beneficiaries. The trust was to terminate when the youngest beneficiary turned 35, at which point the trustee would wind up the trust and distribute its assets. The trust document, however, did not specify the proportions in which each beneficiary was entitled to receive distributions.
After the original designated co-trustees and their named successors failed to accept the trustee role, the trust’s assets remained undistributed. In January 2024, beneficiaries Brooks and Stephen Lindemood petitioned the trial court to appoint a third-party successor trustee. The trial court appointed Albert C. Elliott as successor trustee and granted “all rights, powers, privileges, duties and authority conferred upon the Trustee of the Trust.” Following alleged escalating friction between the parties, Brooks and Lindemood filed a motion to clarify the successor trustee’s powers. On March 12, 2025, the trial court granted the motion without holding a hearing, issuing an order that enumerated sixteen specific powers for the successor trustee, including the power to sell or partition trust property, collect rents, demand accountings from Bausch, and take other actions necessary for winding up the trust.
Bausch filed a motion for reconsideration, and the trial court held a hearing on September 23, 2025, at which it reconfirmed its ruling. When the trial court denied Bausch’s motion for reconsideration on October 29, 2025, Bausch sought a writ of mandamus to vacate the clarifying order.
The Court’s Holding
The court of appeals denied Bausch’s petition for mandamus. The court held that mandamus requires a showing of (1) a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court and (2) the absence of an adequate appellate remedy. The court rejected Bausch’s due process argument, holding that although the trial court signed the clarifying order without an initial hearing, Bausch was not deprived of due process because the trial court subsequently held a hearing on his motion for reconsideration, considered the parties’ arguments and responses, and reconfirmed its ruling. The court cited Martin v. Martin, Martin & Richards, Inc., holding that any error from failure to provide notice could be harmless when the trial court considered the nonmovant’s response and reconfirmed its prior ruling.
The court also rejected Bausch’s mandamus petition on the ground that an adequate appellate remedy exists. The court emphasized that challenges to trustee powers are properly pursued through ordinary direct appeal, not extraordinary mandamus relief. The court noted that in Sorrel v. Sorrel, beneficiaries directly appealed a trial court order concerning trustee powers and trust termination, demonstrating the availability of appellate review for such disputes. The court found that Bausch bore the burden of showing the lack of an adequate remedy and failed to do so, pointing to no authority extending mandamus relief to trustee power disputes.
The court emphasized that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy inappropriate for the type of order at issue, particularly given that district courts have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all trust proceedings under Texas Property Code § 115.001 and have routinely exercised that jurisdiction over disputes concerning trustee powers.
Key Takeaways
- Procedural defects in trial court orders—such as signing an order without a hearing—may be cured and rendered harmless when the trial court holds a subsequent hearing, considers all parties’ responses, and reconfirms its ruling.
- Challenges to the scope of trustee powers should be pursued through ordinary direct appeal to the court of appeals, not through the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
- Mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle for disputes regarding trustee authority, even when a relator alleges the trustee’s powers exceed the trust instrument’s scope.
- The burden rests on the party seeking mandamus to demonstrate both a clear abuse of discretion and the absence of an adequate appellate remedy.
Why It Matters
This decision establishes clear boundaries on the availability of mandamus relief in trust administration disputes. Beneficiaries challenging a trustee’s authority or a trial court’s order defining trustee powers must pursue ordinary appeals rather than seek extraordinary mandamus relief. The ruling confirms that procedural informalities in trust administration orders—such as an initial lack of hearing—do not violate due process when the trial court provides a full hearing and reconfirms its decision.
For trustees, trust beneficiaries, and practitioners involved in trust administration, this opinion clarifies that trial courts have broad discretion to define trustee powers necessary to wind up a trust, and challenges to such orders must follow standard appellate procedures. The court’s reliance on Texas Property Code § 115.001 underscores that district courts possess exclusive jurisdiction over all trust-related proceedings, including disputes regarding trustee authority, and the appellate courts will review such decisions through normal appellate channels rather than extraordinary relief.