pjc-family-2024-lib

PJC 235.21

E XPRESS T RUSTS

Whether a claimant “should have known” of facts giving rise to a claim is an objec tive inquiry. See Berry , 646 S.W.3d at 524. In the fiduciary context, the nature of the injury is “presumed to be inherently undiscoverable” because “[f]iduciaries are pre sumed to possess superior knowledge” about their activities. Marcus & Millichap Real Estate Investment Services of Nevada, Inc. v. Triex Texas Holdings, LLC , 659 S.W.3d 456, 461 (Tex. 2023) (per curiam) (quoting Computer Associates International, Inc. , 918 S.W.2d 453). In cases where one person owes a fiduciary duty to another, the per son to whom the duty is owed may invoke the discovery rule when they are either “unable to inquire into the fiduciary’s actions or unaware of the need to do so.” Valdez v. Hollenbeck , 465 S.W.3d 217, 231 (Tex. 2015). Nevertheless, the person to whom the duty is owed “‘has some responsibility to ascertain when an injury occurs.’” Berry , 646 S.W.3d at 526 (quoting Computer Associates International, Inc. , 918 S.W.2d at 456.). Even in cases of fraud, the person to whom a fiduciary duty is owed must exercise reasonable diligence once they are aware of facts that would have led to the discovery of the wrongful act. See Berry , 646 S.W.3d at 525. Once “the fact of misconduct becomes apparent it can no longer be ignored, regardless of the nature of the relation ship.” S.V. v. R.V. , 933 S.W.2d 1, 8 (Tex. 1996). Removal. Although the four-year limitations period determines whether an inter ested person can obtain monetary recovery from a trustee’s fiduciary breach, it does not affect whether the interested person can seek that trustee’s removal. Ditta v. Conte , 298 S.W.3d 187, 192 (Tex. 2009).

[Chapters 236–239 are reserved for expansion.]

302