pjc-family-2024-lib

E XPRESS T RUSTS

PJC 235.21

PJC 235.21 Limitations

If you answered [“Yes”] [“No”] [ see comment ] to Question ______, then answer the following question. Otherwise, do not answer the following ques tion. QUESTION ______ By what date should BENEFICIARY , in the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered the [ describe breach of fiduciary duty ] of TRUSTEE ?

Answer by stating the date. Answer: _______________

COMMENT Wording conditioning instruction. This PJC is predicated on a finding of breach of fiduciary duty: a “Yes” answer to PJC 235.9 (breach of duty by trustee—other than self-dealing) or PJC 235.12 (breach of duty by trustee—self-dealing—duty of loyalty eliminated), or a “No” answer to PJC 235.10 (breach of duty by trustee—self dealing—duties not modified or eliminated by trust) or PJC 235.11 (breach of duty by trustee—self-dealing—duties modified but not eliminated by trust). If damages are sought based on PJC 235.9 and that question is submitted as shown in PJC 235.9 (that is, with separate answers for each duty) rather than in broad form, the conditioning instruction should be reworded accordingly. When to use. PJC 235.21 is to be used to determine if a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee is barred by the statute of limitations in those cases where the discovery rule applies. The statute of limitations for a breach of fiduciary duty by a trustee is four years. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.004(a)(5). Generally, a claim accrues when wrongful conduct causes a legal injury, even if the fact of injury is not discovered until later and all resulting damages have not yet occurred. Berry v. Berry , 646 S.W.3d 516, 523–24 (Tex. 2022) (citing American Star Energy & Minerals Corp. v. Stowers , 457 S.W.3d 427, 430 (Tex. 2015), and Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Knott , 128 S.W.3d 211, 221 (Tex. 2003)). The dis covery rule is a narrow exception to the general rule and operates to “[defer] accrual of a cause of action until the plaintiff knew or, exercising reasonable diligence, should have known of the facts giving rise to the cause of action.” Berry , 646 S.W.3d at 524 (citing Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc. , 918 S.W.2d 453, 455 (Tex. 1996)).

301