Austin Trust Company as Trustee of the Bob and Elizabeth Lanier Descendants Trusts for Robert Clayton Lanier, Jr. v. Jay Houren, as Independent of the Estate of Robert C. Lanier ( 2023 )

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 21-0355
══════════
Austin Trust Company as Trustee of the Bob and Elizabeth
Lanier Descendants Trusts for Robert Clayton Lanier, Jr., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
Jay Houren, as Independent Executor of the Estate of
Robert C. Lanier, Deceased,
Respondent
═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════
Argued October 4, 2022
JUSTICE LEHRMANN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issues in this case involve the scope and validity of liability
releases in a family settlement agreement relating to the administration
of a decedent’s estate. Some of the parties to that agreement were the
remainder beneficiaries of a marital trust, of which the decedent had
been the trustee and sole beneficiary during his life. After executing the
agreement, the trust beneficiaries demanded that the estate’s executor
reimburse the trust millions of dollars in funds the trust had allegedly
loaned to the decedent. The executor rejected the claim, and in the
ensuing litigation, the beneficiaries assert both that the executor is
liable for the unpaid debt and, alternatively, that the decedent, as
trustee, had distributed those funds to himself in violation of the trust’s
terms. The beneficiaries contend the settlement agreement does not bar
their claims because the beneficiaries lacked the statutory “full
information” to which they were entitled in order to release a trustee
from liability. The trial court rendered summary judgment for the
estate’s executor, and the court of appeals affirmed.
We hold that (1) the executor’s obligation under the family
settlement agreement to pay all debts and claims of the Estate does not
override the releases’ applicability to the trust beneficiaries’ claims;
(2) the executor did not owe a fiduciary duty to the trust beneficiaries,
who were not devised any probate assets; and (3) assuming the statutory
conditions governing beneficiary releases of trustee liability—most
notably, the requirement that the beneficiary be acting on “full
information” in executing the release—cannot be waived, the executor
provided such information, thereby rendering the releases enforceable.
Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
I. Background
Bob Lanier’s first wife Elizabeth died in 1984, survived by Bob
and their five children (the First Marriage Children). After Elizabeth
died, Bob married Elyse Lanier. Bob and Elyse were married for over
thirty years until Bob’s death in 2014.
Elizabeth’s will established the Robert C. Lanier Marital Trust,
which was funded by approximately $54 million in assets—most of
2
Elizabeth’s half of the community estate. The will named Bob sole
trustee and sole beneficiary of the Marital Trust during his life and
directed that he receive all the trust income for life, as well as “such
amounts of the principal of the trust as Trustee in its sole judgment may
determine are necessary for his health, support, or maintenance in his
accustomed standard of living.” Upon termination of the Marital Trust
at Bob’s death, Elizabeth’s will directed that the remaining principal be
disbursed in equal shares to the First Marriage Children, subject to
Bob’s special testamentary power of appointment exercisable “in favor
of any one or more of a group consisting of [Elizabeth’s] issue, spouses of
[Elizabeth’s] issue, and charities[.]”
The only check on Bob’s authority as trustee to invade the trust
principal was a flexible directive requiring Bob to “consider resources
reasonably available to him.” Elizabeth’s will also declared that the
trustee “shall never have personal or corporate liability for making or
failing to make any discretionary distributions to any beneficiary” and
that “any doubt in making or failing to make any discretionary
distribution of principal to [Bob] shall be resolved in his favor.”
Shortly after Elizabeth’s death, Bob elected to treat the Marital
Trust as a Qualified Terminable Interest Property (QTIP) Trust.
Because of this election, no estate tax was due when Elizabeth’s assets
were transferred to the trust. 1 The taxes were deferred until Bob’s
1 Electing to treat the Marital Trust as a QTIP trust—and take
advantage of the accompanying tax-deferral benefits—was possible because
the Marital Trust provided for mandatory income distributions to Bob and was
for his sole lifetime benefit. See 26 U.S.C. § 2056(b)(7).
3
death, at which point the value of the Marital Trust property would be
included in his gross estate. 2
Over Bob’s lifetime, he distributed approximately $37.4 million in
both income and principal from the Marital Trust to himself. When Bob
died on December 20, 2014, approximately $5.5 million in assets
remained in the trust. Upon his death, the Marital Trust terminated,
subject to the administration of Bob’s estate and transfer of the trust’s
remaining assets.
Bob’s will directed that the Marital Trust assets remaining at his
death would pass to the Bob and Elizabeth Lanier Descendants Trusts
for the benefit of the First Marriage Children. Bob left other assets to
his wife Elyse, reflecting an overall estate plan of distributing the
Marital Trust’s assets to the First Marriage Children and the other
estate assets to Elyse. Bob’s will named his attorney, Jay Houren,
independent executor of Bob’s estate. Cadence Bank served as successor
trustee of the Marital Trust for winding-up purposes and also initially
served as trustee of the various Descendants Trusts.
As part of an effort to expedite distribution of the trust and estate
assets, Houren proposed a family settlement agreement (Agreement) to
all interested parties of Bob’s estate, including the First Marriage
Children, Elyse, Elyse’s children, Houren, and Cadence Bank. 3 Before
2After the surviving spouse’s death, the value of his or her gross estate
includes the value of the QTIP trust property. Id. § 2044.
3 According to Houren, because of the potential estate-tax liability, and
the fact that the Estate would look to the Marital Trust to satisfy taxes owed
on the trust’s assets, any significant distributions would otherwise have been
4
signing the Agreement, the parties obtained independent counsel and
received “Disclosures” that included, among other documents, general
accounting ledgers for Bob and the Marital Trust for the years 2009
through 2014. The Marital Trust ledgers reflect payments to Bob
totaling $37,405,964.03 as of December 31, 2014, an amount equivalent
to the total amount of trust distributions—both income and principal—
made to Bob during his life. The payments are classified as “A/R –
Robert C. Lanier” at the top of each page. Bob’s ledgers reflect
corresponding payments from the Marital Trust in the same amount,
classified as “A/DIST – LANIER MATITAL [sic] TR.”
By June 2015, all interested parties had signed the Agreement. 4
Article IV of the Agreement contains broad release provisions releasing
the parties from any claims by any other parties related to “Covered
Activities,” which encompass “the formation, operation, management, or
administration of [various] Trusts” including the Marital Trust; “the
distribution (including, but not limited to, gifts or loans) (or failure to
distribute) of any property or asset of or by [Bob] . . . or the Trusts”; and
claims “related to, based upon, or made evident in the Disclosures” or
“the facts set forth in Article I” of the Agreement.
delayed until after Houren filed the estate-tax return and received an estate-
tax closing letter from the IRS. Houren attested that “[t]he Estate, with the
input of all the affected parties, thus designed the Family Settlement
Agreement to lessen the risk that the Estate would have to defend any claims
by procuring very broad releases and indemnities from all persons interested
in the Estate and Marital Trust . . . prior to its assets being distributed.”
4The signatories include Elyse, the First Marriage Children, Cadence
Bank, and Houren, among others.
5
After the parties executed the Agreement, Houren filed an estate-
tax return, which did not list the distributions to Bob as either an asset
of the Marital Trust or a liability of the estate. After Houren received
the estate-tax closing letter in June 2016, he distributed the estate’s
assets, save for a small reserve to cover administrative expenses.
On December 1, 2016, Austin Trust Company, the successor
trustee of the Descendants Trusts, sent a demand letter to Houren
seeking repayment of the “$37,405,964.03 debt . . . that [Bob] owed to
the Marital Trust at his death,” as purportedly evidenced by the
accounting ledgers. After receiving the demand letter, Houren conferred
with Bob’s accountant, Cecil Holley, who explained that the “A/R,” or
accounts receivable, designation on the Marital Trust ledgers is
erroneous and merely a product of the accounting software he had used.
Holley informed Houren that Bob had never borrowed money from the
Marital Trust and that the accounting entries tracked distributions, not
a debt. Houren thus concluded that no debt was owed and rejected
Austin Trust’s claim.
Houren subsequently filed a declaratory-judgment action against
Austin Trust, as trustee of both the Marital Trust and the Descendants
Trusts, and the First Marriage Children, seeking a declaration that the
alleged $37.4 million debt does not exist. Austin Trust counterclaimed
for a declaratory judgment that the debt does exist. Austin Trust later
amended its pleadings to add an alternative claim that Bob, as trustee
of the Marital Trust, had breached his fiduciary duty to the trust’s
remainder beneficiaries—the Descendants Trusts and the First
Marriage Children (collectively, the Beneficiary Parties)—by making
6
unauthorized discretionary distributions of trust principal to himself
during his life.
Houren moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the
evidence conclusively negates the existence of a debt and that both
claims are barred by the Agreement’s broad release provisions. The trial
court granted Houren’s motion, holding that (1) the alleged debt does
not exist and (2) the Beneficiary Parties released all claims to recover
the alleged debt as well as any claim for breach of fiduciary duty. 5 The
trial court then rendered a final judgment awarding Houren attorney’s
fees.
The court of appeals affirmed, holding that, by executing the
Agreement, the Beneficiary Parties released all claims that they may
have had against the other parties to that Agreement. 647 S.W.3d 913,
922–23 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021). The court further held
that the releases are valid regardless of any fiduciary duties Houren or
Bob may have owed to the Beneficiary Parties. Id. at 922. The court of
appeals thus affirmed the trial court’s judgment without addressing its
holding that no debt exists in the first instance. Id. at 923.
II. Discussion
In this Court, the parties dispute both the scope and validity of
the Agreement’s releases. Austin Trust argues that the releases, even
5The trial court also sustained Houren’s hearsay objections to the
accounting ledgers and to the testimony of Austin Trust’s expert regarding the
ledgers. We will assume without deciding that the trial court erred in
sustaining those objections because, considering that evidence, we
nevertheless agree with the trial court that Houren was entitled to summary
judgment.
7
if valid, do not encompass the debt claim because the Agreement
expressly requires the executor to pay all Estate debts. It further argues
that, because the Agreement purports to release a fiduciary from
liability, its validity must be evaluated under a higher standard than
that applied to ordinary arm’s-length transactions. Specifically, Austin
Trust contends that a full-disclosure or full-information standard
applies to the transaction and that the Beneficiary Parties did not
possess the requisite “full information” when they executed the
Agreement.
As this case comes to us on appeal of a summary judgment, we
review the judgment de novo to determine whether Houren, the movant,
showed that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211, 215–16 (Tex. 2003); TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c).
We take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and resolve
reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s favor. Energen Res. Corp. v.
Wallace, 642 S.W.3d 502, 509 (Tex. 2022).
A. Scope of Releases
Before evaluating the validity of the Agreement’s releases, we
address Austin Trust’s contention that they do not encompass the debt
claim in the first instance. 6 For the reasons discussed below, we agree
with Houren that the releases, if valid, bar the debt claim.
6 Austin Trust does not dispute that the releases cover the alternative
claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
8
A settlement agreement is a contract, and its construction is
governed by legal principles applicable to contracts generally. See
Williams v. Glash, 789 S.W.2d 261, 264 (Tex. 1990). Our primary
concern when interpreting contract language is to give effect to the
parties’ intentions, as expressed in the contract language.
Barrow-Shaver Res. Co. v. Carrizo Oil & Gas, Inc., 590 S.W.3d 471, 479
(Tex. 2019); Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,
341 S.W.3d 323, 333–34 (Tex. 2011). We give terms their plain,
ordinary, and generally accepted meaning unless doing so would defeat
the parties’ intent. Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656,
662 (Tex. 2005). Further, we examine the instrument in its entirety in
an effort to harmonize and give effect to all contractual provisions so
that none will be rendered meaningless. See Coker v. Coker, 650 S.W.2d
391, 394 (Tex. 1983). Contract terms cannot be viewed in isolation; each
provision must be considered in the context of the contract as a whole.
Pathfinder Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Great W. Drilling, Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 882,
889 (Tex. 2019). If, under these rules of construction, the agreement’s
language can be given a certain or definite meaning, the agreement is
not ambiguous, and the contract will be construed as a matter of law.
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Primo, 512 S.W.3d 890, 893 (Tex. 2017). Neither
Houren nor Austin Trust asserts that the Agreement at issue is
ambiguous, and we agree that it is not.
The parties agreed to release “the other Parties . . . with respect
to any and all liability arising from any and all Claims . . . in connection
9
with the other Parties . . . and the Covered Activities.” 7 “Claims” is
broadly defined as “any and all obligations, causes of action, suits,
promises, agreements, losses, damages, charges, expenses, challenges,
contests, liabilities, costs, claims, and demands of any nature
whatsoever, known or unknown, which have now accrued or may ever
accrue in the future.” The released claims include, but are not limited
to, “claims of any form of sole, contributory, concurrent, gross, or other
negligence, undue influence, duress, breach of fiduciary duty, or other
misconduct by the other parties, the professionals, or their affiliates.”
And as noted, “Covered Activities” includes claims based on the
“operation, management, or administration of the Estate . . . or the
Trusts”; “the distribution (including, but not limited to, gifts or loans)
(or failure to distribute) of any property or asset of or by [Bob], the
Estate, the Companies, or the Trusts”; and “any Claims related to, based
upon, or made evident in the Disclosures” or the facts stated in Article I
of the Agreement.
The parties’ briefs assume, as do we, that this broad release
language generally encompasses both (1) Austin Trust’s claim that the
Estate is obligated to repay the Descendants Trusts—to whom the
Marital Trust’s remaining assets were distributed—any funds that Bob
may have personally borrowed from the Marital Trust while serving as
its trustee and (2) its alternative claim that Bob breached his fiduciary
duty as trustee of the Marital Trust by distributing principal to himself.
7 The Agreement does not specifically include Bob or the Estate in its
definition of Parties. It does include Houren, both in his individual capacity
and as independent executor of the Estate.
10
The former claim is based on an alleged loan of Marital Trust property
and, as reflected in Austin Trust’s own demand letter, was “made
evident in the Disclosures.”
As to that debt claim, however, Austin Trust asserts that
Paragraph 3.11 of the Agreement, which recognizes Houren’s obligation
to pay Estate debts, overrides any release of liability among the parties
regarding such debts. That is, Austin Trust argues that “the releases
cannot be construed to release a debt that the face of the [Agreement]
states will be paid.” We disagree.
Paragraph 3.11 provides:
All Parties agree that the Executor and his successors have
the obligation to pay all debts and claims of the Estate,[8]
including Estate and Gift Taxes, as well as all Other Taxes
(as defined herein). All Parties agree, acknowledge, and
affirm that they may be liable, under Transferee Liability,
for debts of or claims against the Estate, including for
unpaid taxes, even after the assets of the Estate have been
fully distributed. Accordingly, all Parties agree that the
Executor shall have the right to demand and shall receive
assets that have already been distributed from the Estate
or the Trusts, to the other Parties or their Affiliates, for the
purpose of paying any debts of or claims against the Estate,
including Estate and Gift Taxes as well as Other Taxes (as
detailed in this Section), and correcting any payments or
distributions that were made in error or otherwise in
excess of that [to] which the recipient was entitled after
taking into account the amount of any claims, debts, Estate
and Gift Taxes, or Other Taxes that must be paid.
8 Although the language used is “debts and claims of the Estate,” the
Parties presumably are referring to “debts of and claims against the Estate,”
as the paragraph discusses payment of those debts and claims, not collection.
11
We first note that, while Houren’s obligation is to pay all Estate debts,
the only specific debts referenced—taxes—are demonstrably owed to
third parties. Paragraph 3.11 merely echoes a legal duty the executor
already has: to pay the Estate’s debts. Further, the provision is
principally focused on providing Houren the means to retrieve
previously distributed assets in order to satisfy the obligation to pay
those debts. That authority is consistent with the Marital Trust’s status
as a QTIP trust—whose assets were not subject to the federal estate tax
until Bob’s death—and with the Internal Revenue Code provision
stating that the estate of the surviving spouse has the right to recover
from the recipients of the trust property the amount of tax attributable
to that property. See 26 U.S.C. § 2207A(a). 9
Read in isolation, Paragraph 3.11’s requirement that Houren pay
“all” debts of and claims against the Estate does not distinguish between
9 Section 2207A(a) provides:
If any part of the gross estate consists of property the value of
which is includible in the gross estate by reason of section 2044
(relating to certain property for which marital deduction was
previously allowed), the decedent’s estate shall be entitled to
recover from the person receiving the property the amount by
which—
(A) the total tax under this chapter which has been paid,
exceeds
(B) the total tax under this chapter which would have been
payable if the value of such property had not been
included in the gross estate.
Section 2044 in turn requires QTIP trust property for which the surviving
spouse previously made a deduction to be included in the spouse’s gross estate
for tax purposes. 26 U.S.C. §§ 2044(a), (b)(1)(A), 2056(b)(7).
12
the source of those claims. But Houren argues that this paragraph,
when read within the context of the entire Agreement, does not require
payment of claims and debts that (1) are asserted by parties to the
Agreement and (2) otherwise fall within the scope of the Agreement’s
releases in Article IV. We agree with the result Houren urges because
other provisions within the Agreement confirm that Paragraph 3.11 was
not intended to override the Article IV releases.
Specifically, Paragraph 2.04 of the Agreement states that
notwithstanding the releases and indemnities therein, Houren has the
right to seek recoupment of any taxes owed by the Estate.
Paragraph 3.11 contains no similar “notwithstanding” language,
indicating that it was not intended to create a carve-out for debts and
claims that were otherwise released in Article IV. 10
In sum, we hold that the Agreement’s releases, if otherwise valid,
encompass both the debt claim and the alternative breach-of-fiduciary-
duty claim irrespective of the obligations that Paragraph 3.11 imposes
on Houren.
10 We note that if Paragraph 3.11—which obligates Houren to pay all
Estate debts and claims—is as broad as the Beneficiary Parties suggest, then
it seemingly nullifies the release of both the claim arising from failure to repay
funds Bob allegedly borrowed and the alternative breach-of-fiduciary-duty
claim arising from Bob’s allegedly improper distributions. As noted, however,
the Beneficiary Parties have never argued that Paragraph 3.11 overrides the
releases of the latter claim; rather, they argue that they may pursue that claim
only because the lack of full information renders the releases unenforceable.
13
B. Validity of the Releases
As both of Austin Trust’s claims fall within the scope of the
Agreement’s releases, we next assess whether those releases are
enforceable. A family settlement agreement is an alternative method of
estate administration in Texas that is a favorite of the law. Salmon v.
Salmon, 395 S.W.2d 29, 32 (Tex. 1965). Generally, settlement
agreements are enforceable in the same manner as any other written
contract. However, when the agreement purports to release claims
against one who owes the other party a fiduciary duty, the policies of
freedom of contract and encouragement of final settlement agreements
must be balanced against the duties of care and loyalty owed by the
released fiduciary. See Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959
S.W.2d 171, 175 (Tex. 1997).
Under longstanding common law, trustees and executors owe the
beneficiaries of a respective trust or estate a fiduciary duty of full
disclosure of all material facts known to them that might affect the
beneficiaries’ rights. Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 923 (Tex. 1996)
(quoting Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309, 313 (Tex. 1984)).
With respect to agreements releasing a fiduciary from liability, the duty
includes ensuring that the beneficiary “was informed of all material
facts relating to the release.” Keck, Mahin & Cate v. Nat’l Union Fire
Ins. Co., 20 S.W.3d 692, 699 (Tex. 2000). The condition on release
agreements involving trustees is reflected in the Texas Trust Code,
which provides that “[a] beneficiary who has full legal capacity and is
acting on full information may relieve a trustee from any duty,
responsibility, restriction, or liability as to the beneficiary that would
14
otherwise be imposed on the trustee by this subtitle, including liability
for past violations.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 114.005(a) (emphasis added).
Austin Trust argues that the Agreement’s releases are invalid as
to the claims at issue because the Beneficiary Parties were not informed
of all material facts before executing the Agreement. We examine the
released claims in turn.
1. Validity of the Debt-Claim Release
As discussed, the Beneficiary Parties agreed to release their claim
that Houren, as executor of Bob’s estate, was obligated to repay the
Marital Trust sums that Bob allegedly borrowed from the trust’s assets.
Austin Trust argues that the release is not valid because Houren owed
fiduciary duties to the Estate’s beneficiaries, including the Beneficiary
Parties, and thus could be released from liability to those beneficiaries
only for matters as to which all material facts had been disclosed. Huie,
922 S.W.2d at 923; see also TEX. EST. CODE § 405.003(a) (providing for
an executor to obtain a judicial release of liability with regard to
“matters relating to the past administration of the estate that have been
fully and fairly disclosed”). Houren responds that when the Agreement
was executed, he owed no such duty to the First Marriage Children
because they were beneficiaries of the Marital Trust, not the Estate. We
agree with Houren.
We have described an estate executor as “trustee of the property
of the estate, . . . subject to the high fiduciary standards applicable to all
trustees.” Humane Soc’y v. Austin Nat’l Bank, 531 S.W.2d 574, 577 (Tex.
1975). The executor’s duty runs to the estate and its beneficiaries. See
id.; Huie, 922 S.W.2d at 922. The duty is reflected in the Estates Code,
15
which “vests” a decedent’s estate immediately in his devisees or heirs at
law, subject to payment of the decedent’s debts, TEX. EST. CODE
§ 101.001, and requires the executor or administrator to “recover
possession of the estate and hold the estate in trust to be disposed of in
accordance with the law,” id. § 101.003.
Here, it is undisputed that no Estate assets passed by devise to
the First Marriage Children, either directly or via the respective
Descendants Trusts of which they were beneficiaries, under Bob’s will. 11
Although Bob exercised the testamentary power of appointment granted
in Elizabeth’s will to direct the Marital Trust’s remaining assets to pass
to the trustee of the Descendants Trusts, those assets were not probate
assets that passed through the Estate, and Houren was not responsible
for taking possession or disposing of them. Rather, Cadence Bank (and
later Austin Trust), as successor trustee of the Marital Trust, was
responsible for distributing the trust’s assets in accordance with the
direction given in the will. Because the Beneficiary Parties had an
interest in only nontestamentary property at the time the Agreement
was signed, they did not qualify as beneficiaries of Bob’s estate to whom
Houren owed a corresponding fiduciary duty. See Mohseni v. Hartman,
11 Bob’s will named the First Marriage Children contingent
beneficiaries of Bob’s residuary estate in the event Elyse and her descendants
did not survive Bob by at least ninety days. That contingency did not come to
pass, and at the time the Agreement was executed, the First Marriage
Children were not beneficiaries of any probate assets. See Keck, 20 S.W.3d at
699 & n.3 (noting that a presumption of unfairness applied to a release
agreement between attorney and client because of the fiduciary nature of the
relationship but that the presumption would not have arisen if the client had
severed the attorney–client relationship and hired new counsel before signing
the release).
16
363 S.W.3d 652, 657 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (“[A]n
independent executor does not owe a fiduciary duty to persons who claim
an interest in a decedent’s non-testamentary property; to them, she owes
no legal duty of care.”). Rather, any duty Houren owed to the
Beneficiary Parties as executor of the Estate was no different from the
duty he owed to any other unsecured creditor.
Austin Trust’s arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
First, Austin Trust contends that because Bob’s will created the
Descendants Trusts and directed the Marital Trust assets there, those
assets “were intimately connected to Bob’s Estate.” But Austin Trust
does not assert that they were testamentary assets or that Houren had
any hand in their distribution. Nor do we find support for the legal
significance Austin Trust seeks to attach to Bob’s exercise of the
testamentary power of appointment. Second, Austin Trust notes that
the Agreement’s signature pages designated each of the First Marriage
Children as, among other things, a “contingent beneficiary of the
Estate.” That designation does not change the facts or create a fiduciary
relationship that did not otherwise exist.
Finally, to the extent Austin Trust argues that an independent
executor owes a fiduciary duty to the estate’s creditors, we reject that
contention. We have never recognized such a relationship, nor does the
Estates Code. As the Fourteenth Court of Appeals persuasively
explained in FCLT Loans, L.P. v. Estate of Bracher, while an
independent executor has various statutory duties regarding the
17
approval and payment of proper claims against the estate, 12 the
language of those provisions gives no indication that the executor holds
the estate’s assets in trust for the benefit of creditors or otherwise owes
them a fiduciary duty. 93 S.W.3d 469, 480–81 (Tex. App.—Houston
[14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.); see also Mohseni, 363 S.W.3d at 658 (“The
executor holds the estate property in trust for the beneficiaries because
they have a vested right in that property, but she does not hold it in
trust for the creditors, whose claims against the estate are contingent.”).
Both FCLT and Mohseni recognized and declined to follow two
earlier court of appeals decisions that “described the relationship
between an independent executor and a creditor of the estate as
‘fiduciary.’” FCLT, 93 S.W.3d at 481 (discussing Ertel v. O’Brien, 852
S.W.2d 17, 21 (Tex. App.—Waco 1993, writ denied), and Ex parte Buller,
834 S.W.2d 622, 626 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1992, orig. proceeding)).
Those designations were unpersuasive, as the Ertel court provided no
analysis supporting its conclusion, 852 S.W.2d at 21, and the Buller
court relied on cases that simply do not discuss the duty owed by an
independent executor to estate creditors under our statutory scheme,
834 S.W.2d at 626. Evaluating these conflicting decisions, in United
States v. Marshall the Fifth Circuit agreed with the reasoning in FCLT
and concluded that an independent executor does not owe estate
creditors a fiduciary duty under Texas law. 798 F.3d 296, 315 (5th Cir.
2015). We confirm the Fifth Circuit’s assessment.
12 See TEX. EST. CODE §§ 403.051–.059 (governing claims against the
estate in an independent administration).
18
In the absence of a fiduciary relationship between Houren as
executor and the Beneficiary Parties as creditors, we reject Austin
Trust’s argument that “full disclosure” is the standard for evaluating the
releases of the debt claim. Accordingly, we evaluate their enforceability
using the same standard applicable to any other contract. Williams, 789
S.W.2d at 264 (“Under Texas law, a release is a contract . . . .”). In this
Court, Austin Trust offers no contractual grounds to invalidate the
releases apart from the absence of full disclosure. The court of appeals
therefore properly affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment on the
debt claim. 13
2. Validity of the Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty-Claim Release
Although the Agreement does not purport to release a fiduciary
from liability with respect to the debt claim, the same cannot be said
with respect to the alternative breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. That
claim, though asserted against Houren as executor of Bob’s estate, is
premised on Bob’s actions taken in his capacity as trustee of the Marital
Trust. As discussed, Austin Trust asserts that Bob (as trustee)
distributed trust principal to himself (as beneficiary) in a manner that
violated the trust’s limitations on such distributions, causing the trust
to diminish significantly in value during Bob’s life. In doing so, Austin
Trust argues, Bob violated the fiduciary duty he owed to the Beneficiary
Parties as contingent beneficiaries of the trust. See TEX. PROP. CODE
To the extent Houren contends—as an alternative basis on which to
13
affirm the court of appeals’ judgment—that he conclusively established the
debt’s nonexistence, we need not reach that argument.
19
§ 111.004(2), (6) (defining “beneficiary,” to whom the trustee owes a
fiduciary duty, to include contingent beneficiaries); cf. Corpus Christi
Bank & Tr. v. Roberts, 597 S.W.2d 752, 755 (Tex. 1980) (holding that a
trustee’s duty to provide an accounting to beneficiaries survived his
death). The merits of that claim were not the subject of Houren’s motion
for summary judgment and are not before us. We address only the
Agreement’s release of the claim.
a. Trust Beneficiary’s Statutory Right to “Full Information”
In Slay v. Burnett Trust, we confirmed the “established rule”
governing when a beneficiary’s “consent to an act of his trustee which
would constitute a violation of the duty of loyalty precludes him from
holding the trustee liable for the consequences of the act.” 187 S.W.2d
377, 390 (Tex. 1945). We explained that such consent does not foreclose
liability “unless it is made to appear that when he gave his consent the
beneficiary had full knowledge of all the material facts which the trustee
knew.” Id. (citing RESTATEMENT OF TRUSTS § 216 (AM. L. INST. 1935));
see also Keck, 20 S.W.3d at 699 (noting a fiduciary’s burden to establish
that an agreement releasing the fiduciary from liability was “fair and
reasonable” and that the other party “was informed of all material facts
relating to the release”); RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 97 (AM. L.
INST. 2012).
Further, releases of liability for certain fiduciaries, including
trustees, are governed by statute. Under the Trust Code, “[a]
beneficiary who has full legal capacity and is acting on full information
may relieve a trustee from any duty, responsibility, restriction, or
liability as to the beneficiary that would otherwise be imposed on the
20
trustee by this subtitle, including liability for past violations.” TEX.
PROP. CODE § 114.005(a).
Without addressing Section 114.005, the court of appeals here
identified six “factors” it considered in holding that the releases were
valid:
(1) the terms of the contract were negotiated rather than
boilerplate, and the disputed issue was specifically
discussed; (2) the complaining party was represented by
legal counsel; (3) the negotiations occurred as part of an
arms-length transaction; (4) the parties were
knowledgeable in business matters; (5) the release
language was clear; and (6) the parties were working to
achieve a once and for all settlement of all claims so they
could permanently part ways.
647 S.W.3d at 923 (citing Harrison v. Harrison Ints., Ltd., No.
14-15-00348-CV, 2017 WL 830504, at *5 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] Feb. 28, 2017, pet. denied)). These factors were gleaned from this
Court’s precedent governing when a settlement agreement’s disclaimer
of reliance on the parties’ representations forecloses one of the parties
from claiming the agreement was fraudulently induced and thus
unenforceable. See Forest Oil Corp. v. McAllen, 268 S.W.3d 51, 60 (Tex.
2008) (identifying the first five factors as “guid[ing] our reasoning” in
evaluating disclaimer-of-reliance clauses under a totality-of-the-
circumstances approach, and the sixth as an “additional factor urging
rejection of fraud-based claims” (emphasis removed)). We apply the
so-called Forest Oil factors in an effort to “balance society’s interest in
protecting parties against fraudulently induced promises with its
interest in enabling parties to ‘fully and finally resolve disputes between
21
them.’” Transcor Astra Grp. S.A. v. Petrobras Am. Inc., 650 S.W.3d 462,
473 (Tex. 2022) (quoting Schlumberger, 959 S.W.2d at 179).
Austin Trust contends that the court of appeals erred in utilizing
the Forest Oil factors—which it contends were established to evaluate
the validity of nonfiduciary, arm’s-length transactions—to supplant the
“full disclosure” standard applicable to releases of fiduciary liability.
Houren responds that (1) Austin Trust’s claims are premised on the very
disclosures it now asserts were inadequate; (2) assuming Houren had a
duty to disclose all material facts within his knowledge, the evidence
shows he was not aware of the potential significance of the ledger entries
or that they contained any errors; (3) the court of appeals correctly found
instructive this Court’s framework for assessing reliance disclaimers in
fraud cases; and (4) applying those factors, the parties to the Agreement
knowingly and voluntarily surrendered their right to disclosure of
information beyond what was provided.
We recently acknowledged in Petrobras that, “[a]s a general rule,
a transaction between fiduciaries is not an arm’s-length transaction but
instead requires higher fiduciary standards that require full disclosure
of all material facts.” Id. at 476 (citing Schlumberger, 959 S.W.2d at
175). Petrobras involved the enforceability of a reliance disclaimer in a
settlement agreement resolving litigation stemming from the
termination of a joint venture between two corporations. Id. at 468.
Petrobras sought to invalidate the agreement on the ground that Astra
committed fraud by offering bribes to Petrobras officials (and failing to
disclose the bribes) during the settlement negotiations. Id. at 470.
Petrobras further contended that Astra’s agents owed fiduciary duties
22
to Petrobras during the settlement negotiations because they served as
officers and directors of the terminated joint venture. Id.
Applying the Forest Oil factors, we concluded that the reliance
disclaimer was enforceable and precluded Petrobras’s fraud claim. Id.
at 478. We addressed Petrobras’s fiduciary-duty argument as part of
our examination of the third factor—whether the parties dealt with each
other in an arm’s-length transaction—but we expressed doubt as to
whether fiduciary duties were owed to Petrobras in the first instance.
Id. at 475–76. “[E]ven if the Astra individuals owed fiduciary duties to
disclose material information to Petrobras during the [settlement]
negotiations,” we explained, “we cannot conclude that Petrobras could
not have knowingly and intentionally disclaimed reliance on the
individuals’ representations under the[] circumstances.” Id. at 477.
Those circumstances, including the fact that the joint venture had
terminated years earlier and the companies had been litigating
numerous disputes since, led us to determine that even if the third
Forest Oil factor weighed against enforcing the reliance disclaimer, “it
does not weigh so heavily as to overcome the other factors.” Id.
This Court has not addressed whether the Forest Oil factors—
which assist courts in evaluating whether a disclaimer of reliance in a
settlement agreement defeats a claim of fraudulent inducement—
should be used to assess the validity of a release of a breach-of-fiduciary-
duty claim. Nor does it appear that any Texas court, including the court
of appeals here, has addressed how those factors should interact with
the established common-law requirements for trustee releases we
adopted in Slay. But we need not definitively answer that question in
23
this case because (1) Section 114.005 of the Trust Code expressly enables
beneficiaries to consent to the releases at issue when they have “full
information” and (2) as discussed below, we hold that the Marital Trust’s
beneficiaries had such “full information” when they executed the
Agreement.
Under the Trust Code, a “trustee who commits a breach of trust
is chargeable with any damages resulting from such breach of trust,
including . . . any loss or depreciation in value of the trust estate as a
result of the breach of trust.” TEX. PROP. CODE § 114.001(c)(1). However,
as noted, “[a] beneficiary who has full legal capacity and is acting on full
information may relieve a trustee from any duty, responsibility,
restriction, or liability that would otherwise be imposed on the trustee
by this subtitle, including liability for past violations.” Id. § 114.005(a).
Here, the Beneficiary Parties agreed to release Houren, as executor of
Bob’s estate, from liability for Bob’s alleged breach of the Marital Trust,
thereby triggering Section 114.005’s conditions.
Houren argues that Section 114.005 does not apply to the releases
at issue for two reasons. First, Houren contends that Section 114.005
applies only to releases by beneficiaries and thus does not apply to the
release executed by Cadence Bank as trustee of the Descendants Trusts.
However, the Descendants Trusts were themselves remainder
beneficiaries of the Marital Trust, and Cadence Bank acted on behalf of
the Descendants Trusts in executing the Agreement. Further, the First
Marriage Children also executed the Agreement and were themselves
beneficiaries of those trusts.
24
Second, Houren argues that Section 114.005 cannot apply to a
release of liability involving a deceased trustee because subsection (b)
provides that the “release must be in writing and delivered to the
trustee” and the Legislature would not have imposed an impossible
condition such as delivery to a dead trustee. Again, we disagree.
Houren does not dispute that the executor or administrator of a
deceased trustee’s estate may be sued for breaches of fiduciary duty
committed by the deceased trustee, see Corpus Christi Bank & Tr., 597
S.W.2d at 755, and we see no reason why delivery of a release to that
executor or administrator would not qualify as delivery to the trustee.
Had the Legislature intended Section 114.005 not to apply to past
violations by deceased trustees, it would have said so. Accordingly, we
hold that Section 114.005 applies to the releases in the Agreement
insofar as they release Houren from liability for Bob’s alleged breach of
fiduciary duty in distributing principal from the Marital Trust in
violation of the trust’s terms. 14
Houren next argues that, even if Section 114.005 otherwise
applies to the Agreement’s releases, the Beneficiary Parties waived their
entitlement to any information beyond what was provided and, in any
event, they had full information when they executed the releases. The
Beneficiary Parties respond that the statutory right to full information
cannot be waived, that they lacked full information when they signed
the Agreement, and that the releases are thus unenforceable. Because
we agree with Houren that the evidence conclusively establishes the
14 Again, we express no opinion on the merits of the claim.
25
Beneficiary Parties were acting on the requisite “full information,” as
discussed below, we assume without deciding that the right cannot be
waived. See Keck, 20 S.W.3d at 699 (noting that the burden is on the
fiduciary to establish that the releasing party was informed of all
material facts relating to the release); see also Draughon v. Johnson, 631
S.W.3d 81, 88 (Tex. 2021) (holding that a party who moves for summary
judgment must conclusively establish the elements of that claim or
defense).
b. The Beneficiary Parties Had Full Information
Section 114.005 does not define “full information,” but we
presume the Legislature enacted the provision “with full knowledge of
the existing condition of the law and with reference to it.” See JCB, Inc.
v. Horsburgh & Scott Co., 597 S.W.3d 481, 486 (Tex. 2019); see also
Phillips v. Beaber, 995 S.W.2d 655, 658 (Tex. 1999) (noting that “we
presume that the Legislature acted with knowledge of the common
law”). In the context of Section 114.005, we see nothing indicating that
the Legislature intended “full information” to mean something other
than we have required under the common law—specifically, “full
knowledge of all the material facts which the trustee knew.” Slay, 187
S.W.2d at 390.
Both Section 114.005 and Slay echo the Restatement (Third) of
Trusts, which, in turn, gives color to the phrase “acting on full
information.” See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TRUSTS § 97(b) (requiring
that a beneficiary be “aware of the beneficiary’s rights and of all material
facts and implications that the trustee knew or should have known
26
relating to the matter” at the time of consent or ratification for it to be
valid). According to the Restatement, which we find persuasive:
It is not necessary that the trustee inform the beneficiary
of all the details of which the trustee has knowledge; but,
because of the strict fiduciary relationship between trustee
and beneficiary, a trustee who would rely on a beneficiary’s
consent, ratification, or release normally has the burden of
showing that the beneficiary (or his or her representative)
was sufficiently informed to understand the character of
the act or omission and was in a position to reach an
informed opinion on the advisability of consenting,
ratifying, or granting a release. . . .
Id. § 97(b) cmt. e. Whether such “full information” has been provided
necessarily depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The Restatement and our precedent clarify the purpose behind
the full-information requirement, which is to ensure the beneficiary
makes a meaningful and informed decision before signing away any
rights he may have. Knowledge of the full scope, extent, and details of
the acts the beneficiary is releasing, while certainly preferable, is not
required so long as he is informed enough to understand the nature and
consequences of what he is giving up.
We hold that the Beneficiary Parties were sufficiently informed
to understand the character of the act they were releasing and were in
a position to reach an informed opinion on the advisability of agreeing
to the release. This conclusion is supported by both the parties’
acknowledgments in the Agreement itself as well as the circumstances
surrounding its execution.
All parties to the Agreement “agree[d], acknowledge[d], and
affirm[ed] that . . . the facts set forth in Article I of [the] Agreement are
27
true and correct and hereby incorporated into [the] Agreement as agreed
to, acknowledged, and affirmed facts.” Article I recites that Elizabeth’s
will established the Marital Trust, of which Bob was the trustee, and
directed the Trust “to pay [Bob] all of the net income of the Marital Trust
and such amounts of principal as the trustee . . . in his sole judgment
may determine are necessary for [Bob’s] health, support, or
maintenance in his accustomed standard of living.” The Agreement
further describes Bob’s testamentary power of appointment over the
Marital Trust and his election to treat the Marital Trust as a QTIP trust
under 26 U.S.C. § 2056(b)(7). Additionally, several provisions of the
Agreement reference “distributions” from the Marital Trust to Bob.
In addition to the numerous factual recitations in Article I, the
Agreement recites that the parties were represented by counsel of their
choosing, 15 had a reasonable opportunity to read and understand the
Agreement, including the Disclosures, and had a reasonable opportunity
to consult with and ask questions of their attorneys regarding the
Agreement and the Disclosures before executing the Agreement. The
parties further acknowledged that Houren had “not conducted a
significant accounting or investigation of the facts contained in . . . the
Disclosures,” they had not requested that he conduct any such
accounting or investigation, and they had requested execution of the
Agreement “without incurring the cost or delay likely involved with such
15 The Agreement specifically says that the parties were represented by
counsel or consciously chose not to be represented by counsel. However,
Houren attested that “[a]ll parties were represented by independent counsel
when they executed the Family Settlement Agreement.”
28
accountings or investigations in order to ensure an orderly and
expeditious settlement of the Estate.” Finally, in connection with the
releases, the Beneficiary Parties acknowledged that they “had access to
or been given the opportunity to review relevant records and other
materials as [they] may have requested before executing this
Agreement, including all the Disclosures,” and they had “examined such
records and materials, or caused them to be examined on [their] behalf,
or after receiving appropriate advice from legal counsel and others ha[d]
declined to do so.”
Turning to the Disclosures, the parties’ focus in this suit is on the
general ledgers for 2009 through 2014 for both Bob and the Marital
Trust. As noted, Bob’s ledgers reflect “A/DIST,” or “accumulated
distributions,” from the Marital Trust in the total amount of
$37,405,964.03 as of Bob’s death. And the Marital Trust ledgers reflect
payments to Bob in the same amount that are designated “A/R,” or
“accounts receivable.”
Austin Trust argues that the summary-judgment record
establishes, or at least raises a fact issue, that the Beneficiary Parties
were not acting on the requisite “full information” in releasing their
breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims because (1) by classifying the Marital
Trust’s payments to Bob as “accounts receivable,” the Disclosures
reflected $37.4 million in loans to Bob, not distributions that may have
been improper under the trust documents; (2) Houren now claims that
the disclosed ledgers’ classification of the payments to Bob as accounts
receivable rather than distributions was erroneous; and (3) the financial
statements on which Houren relied in seeking summary judgment on
29
the ground that no debt to the trust exists were not part of the
disclosures associated with the Agreement. We disagree, as Austin
Trust fails to recognize the full context in which the Disclosures were
provided and reviewed.
First, although the Marital Trust ledgers classify the payments
to Bob as accounts receivable, the corresponding ledgers for Bob classify
those payments as accumulated distributions, not accounts payable.
And the ledgers contain no other notation or description indicating that
the payments were a loan or were otherwise required to be reimbursed.
Second, the Agreement specifically discusses the Marital Trust’s
status as a QTIP trust under 26 U.S.C. § 2056(b)(7), which is what
allowed the trust’s assets to be deducted from the value of Elizabeth’s
estate for estate-tax purposes. Section 2056(b)(7) confirms that to
qualify for the QTIP deduction, the surviving spouse (Bob) must be
“entitled to all the income from the property, payable annually or at
more frequent intervals.” Consistent with that provision, Elizabeth’s
will directed the Marital Trust to pay Bob “all” the trust’s net income,
and the Agreement specifically references that requirement. This
context is a significant indication that the “A/R” classification in the
Marital Trust ledgers did not by itself reflect a loan because, if it did, it
would mean that Bob had agreed to repay every cent the Marital Trust
ever distributed, which would necessarily include income as well as
principal in contravention of the trust’s QTIP status.
Indeed, although Austin Trust initially demanded that Houren
repay the entire $37.4 million reflected in the ledgers as a debt Bob
purportedly owed to the Marital Trust, Austin Trust alleged in its
30
pleadings that Bob “fully intended to repay out of his own pocket any
and all sums in excess of income distributions that he may ever have
received from the Marital Trust.” (Emphasis added.) Austin Trust thus
concedes that at least some of the payments reflected in the ledgers were
not loans, notwithstanding the “A/R” designation. And nothing in the
ledgers indicates that income and principal were being treated
differently.
Finally, the Agreement reflects that the parties were represented
by and had the opportunity to confer with their attorneys regarding the
Agreement and the Disclosures. While the beneficiaries’ representation
by counsel is not a substitute for “full information,” it is an indication
that the beneficiaries, through their counsel, were able to appreciate the
discrepancy between the A/R designation in the Marital Trust ledger
and the A/DIST designation in Bob’s ledger, as well as the impact of
classifying the entire amount of the distributions to Bob as loans. 16
In sum, while the sufficiency of disclosure will depend on the facts
and circumstances of each case, the underlying legal principle remains
constant: a beneficiary has full information when he is in a position to
make a meaningful and informed decision about releasing a trustee from
liability or, said differently, when he is informed enough to understand
the nature and consequences of what he is releasing. Here, the
Beneficiary Parties were fully aware that they were waiving the right to
challenge the propriety of any of the prior distributions from the Marital
16 We also reiterate that, even if the ledgers indicated that the
distributions were loans Bob was obligated to repay, the Beneficiary Parties
released those claims as well.
31
Trust, even if they did not know the exact amount, in exchange for an
expedited distribution of the trust’s remaining assets.
III. Conclusion
We hold that the family settlement agreement’s releases
encompass both Austin Trust’s debt claim as well as its breach-of-
fiduciary-duty claim. We further hold that the releases are valid and
that the trial court properly granted summary judgment in Houren’s
favor. Accordingly, we affirm the court of appeals’ judgment.
Debra H. Lehrmann
Justice
OPINION DELIVERED: March 24, 2023
32