These matters include the receiver's management and operation of receivership property as directed by the court. E.g.,McHenry v. Bankers' Tr. Co. , 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1918, writ ref'd). But San Jacinto Oil went on to hold that the right "[t]o still demand a jury to try the issues of fact" following the master's report "is a right secured to [the appellants] by the constitutional and statutory provisions before cited."
But there are cases in which it is proper that a sale be made. In the case of Henry v. Bankers Trust Co., (Tex.Civ.App.) 206 S.W. 560, 573, the court held that the property of an insolvent irrigation company, under receivership, might be sold by the court on its own motion. We need not determine whether that is good law or not, but the court, in any event, had the right to determine, upon a showing made, whether such property should be sold.
Thus, by analogy to receivership cases, Bock posits, and we agree, that the power to modify a trust is ancillary to a court's authority to administer the trust and must therefore be considered a special proceeding for which there is no jury-trial right. See, e.g.,Cocke v. Southland Life Ins. Co. , 75 S.W.2d 194, 198 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1934, writ ref'd) (recognizing there is no jury-trial right for "incidental" or "supplemental" proceedings in a receivership matter); McHenry v. Bankers’ Tr. Co. , 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex. App.—Galveston 1918), writ dismissed sub nom.McHenry v. Bankers’ Tr. Co. , 255 U.S. 559, 41 S.Ct. 321, 65 L.Ed. 785 (1921) (per curiam) (recognizing that intervenors in a receivership proceeding had no right to a jury trial on an ancillary issue involving their water rights in the case). The court in Amaro , however, noted that there is a jury-trial right in related tort cases, such as when a trustee or beneficiary brings a claim for breach of fiduciary duty or other related claims against someone.
As noted by ICBC, Evans, and Maynards, it has long been the rule in Texas that the right to trial by jury does not extend to receivership proceedings. Henry v. Masson, 333 S.W.3d 825, 848 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Bergeron v. Sessions, 561 S.W.2d 551, 555 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Moody v. State, 538 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Civ.App.--Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Ferguson, 210 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.Civ.App.--Austin 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.); McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Co., 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex.Civ.App.--Galveston 1918, writ ref'd). Receivership property is in the custody of the law; consequently, its management and control rests exclusively in the court.
As noted by ICBC, Evans, and Maynards, it has long been the rule in Texas that the right to trial by jury does not extend to receivership proceedings. Henry v. Masson, 333 S.W.3d 825, 848 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2010, no pet.); Bergeron v. Sessions, 561 S.W.2d 551, 555 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Moody v. State, 538 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Ferguson, 210 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.); McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Co., 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1918, writ ref'd). Receivership property is in the custody of the law; consequently, its management and control rests exclusively in the court.
"Traditionally, it has been held that the right to trial by jury does not extend to receivership proceedings." Bergeron v. Sessions, 561 S.W.2d 551, 555 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1977, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (citing Moody v. State, 538 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.), Ferguson v. Ferguson, 210 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.), and McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Co., 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston 1918, writ ref'd)). "[S]ince receivership property is in custody of the law, its management and control is that of the court; jury intervention would impermissibly transfer control and management of the receivership from the court to the jury."
Traditionally, it has been held that the right to trial by jury does not extend to receivership proceedings. Moody v. State, 538 S.W.2d 158, 161 (Tex.Civ.App. Waco 1976, no writ). Ferguson v. Ferguson, 210 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.Civ.App. Austin 1948, writ ref'd n.r.e.), cert. denied, 339 U.S. 916, 70 S.Ct. 559, 94 L.Ed. 1341 (1949); McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Company, 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex.Civ.App. Galveston 1918, writ ref'd). The rationale for this exception is that since receivership property is in custody of the law, its management and control is that of the court; jury intervention would impermissibly transfer control and management of the receivership from the court to the jury.
It turned specifically on whether the proposed reinsurance agreement recommended by the Texas Receiver, an officer of the court appointed by the court, would serve the best interests of the Empire policyholders. Property held by a receiver is in Custodia legis. It is the settled rule that questions concerning the management and control of such property are addressed to the sound discretion of the court without the interposition of a jury. McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Co., 206 S.W. 560, 572 (Tex.Civ.App. — Galveston, 1918, writ ref.); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 210 S.W.2d 268, 269 (Tex.Civ.App. — Austin, 1948, writ ref., n.r.e.), certiorari denied, 337 U.S. 943, 69 S.Ct. 1498, 93 L.Ed. 1747 (1949), rehearing denied, 338 U.S. 853, 70 S.Ct. 81, 94 L.Ed. 523 (1949), rehearing denied 339 U.S. 916, 70 S.Ct. 559, 94 L.Ed. 1341 (1950). The record does not show an abuse of discretion.
There are few cases which appear to help solve the question before us. The first, relied on by appellees, is McHenry v. Bankers' Trust Co., Tex.Civ.App.1918, 206 S.W. 560, 571. This case involved intervening landowners in a receivership proceeding against an irrigation company in which the receiver had theretofore sold certain assets of the company.
This is not to be countenanced. McHenry v. Bankers Trust Co., Tex. Civ. App. Galveston, 206 S.W. 560, Writ Refused. See also Cocke v. Southland Life Ins. Co., Tex. Civ. App. El Paso, 75 S.W.2d 194, Writ Refused.