Thus, having concluded that Benge is a contingent remainder beneficiary with no standing and that her breach of fiduciary claims are meritless, we are unable to reverse the trial court’s granting of Missi’s plea to the jurisdiction on this basis.Id. The court therefore concluded that Benge did not have standing to assert the claim because the way that she framed her standing was incorrect.The court also affirmed the dismissal of Benge’s claims against third parties on behalf of the trust because she did not have standing to do so:In addition, in In re Benge, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1512, 2018 WL 1062899, at *1 we cited In re XTO Energy Inc., 471 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.), among other cases, stating that generally beneficiaries cannot bring derivative suits on behalf of the trust and concluded that the trial court in this case did not err in dismissing Benge’s derivative claims. See Jacobs v. Jacobs, 448 S.W.3d 626, 630 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.) (“The ‘law of the case’ doctrine is defined as that principle under which questions of law decided on appeal to a court of last resort will govern the case throughout its subsequent stages.”).

Under these circumstances, the trial court properly held that Kenneth did not have standing as a co-trustee to sue the third parties on behalf of the Trust and the release rendered most of his claims moot.” Id. (citing In re XTO Energy Inc., 471 S.W.3d 126, 130 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015, no pet.)).Interesting Note: The Corpus Christi Court’s holding that the daughter did not have standing to assert complaints about the trustees administration of the trust because she was solely a contingent remainder beneficiary seems wrong under the plain terms of the statutes. Texas Property Code Section 115.001 provides:[A] district court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings by or against a trustee and all proceedings concerning trusts, including proceedings to: (1) construe a trust instrument; (2) determine the law applicable to a trust instrument; (3) appoint or remove a trustee; (4) determine the powers, responsibilities, duties, and liability of a trustee; (5) ascertain beneficiaries; (6) make determinations of fact affecting the administration, distribution, or duration of a trust; (7) determine a question arising in the administration or distribution of a trust; (8) relieve a trustee from any or all of the duties, limitations, and restrictions otherwise existin

Also, the daughter could have alleged that the executor of Estrada’s estate refused to assert the fraud and undue influence claims, and when that is pled, there is precedent that would allow a beneficiary of an estate to bring estate claims. Thoughrecent precedent, In re XTO Energy Inc.,No. 05-14-01446-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7723 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 27, 2015, original proceeding), which waspreviously cited on this blog, may limit that standing exception. If the daughter could successfully challenge the creation of the trust and the deeds, those documents would be voidable, and potentially, the second deeds to her may have been effective.

In In re XTO Energy Inc., a beneficiary, on behalf of the trust, sued an oil and gas operator for allegedly not paying sufficient funds to the trust and also sued the trustee for refusing to bring that claim. No. 05-14-01446-CV, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 7723 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 27, 2015, original proceeding). The trustee filed a special exception, requesting that the trial court dismiss the beneficiary’s claims as she did not have standing and failed to plead sufficient facts that would allow her to usurp the trustee’s authority to determine what legal actions to pursue on behalf of the trust.