law breach of fiduciary duty
SUPREME COURT: BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY | SOL |
Texas Supreme court distinguishes suit for removal of trustee from tort action for breach of fiduciary
duty; holds that only the latter is subject to four-year statute of limitations.
The court of appeals held that this trustee-removal suit was barred by the four-year statute of limitations
applicable to breach-of-fiduciary-duty suits. We disagree and hold that no statutory limitations period restricts a
court’s discretion to remove a trustee. A limitations period, while applicable to suits seeking damages for breach
of fiduciary duty, has no place in suits that seek removal rather than recovery. Accordingly, we reverse the court
of appeals’ judgment that the case was time-barred and remand to that court for further proceedings.
Ditta v. Conte, No. 07-1026 (Tex. Jun. 5, 2009) (Willett) (removal of trustee, statute of limitations does not apply,
trustee may be removed at any time, but suit for breach of fiduciary duty subject to four-year SoL)
REVIEW DENIED BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
09-0325
AON RISK SERVICES OF TEXAS, INC. v. HORIZON OFFSHORE CONTRACTORS, INC. AND HORIZON VESSELS,
INC.; from Harris County; 14th district (14-07-00549-CV, 283 SW3d 53, 03-12-09, pet. denied Sep. 2009)(breach
of fiduciary duty, election of remedies, judicial estoppel)
07-0820
PETER J. PARENTI v. KINSEY MOBERG; from Bexar County; 4th district
(04-06-00497-CV, ___ SW3d ___, 05-30-07, pet. denied April 2008) as redrafted
(breach of fiduciary duty, res judicata, exemplary damages cap)
AFFIRMED A jury found Peter J. Parenti liable for breaching his fiduciary duty to Kinsey Moberg and for knowingly
aiding and abetting Moberg's mother and stepfather in breaching their fiduciary duty to Moberg. Parenti raises
four issues on appeal, contending that: (1) Parenti had no fiduciary duty to Moberg; (2) Moberg was not entitled
to mental anguish damages; (3) the award of attorney's fees from an underlying probate action as actual
damages was improper; and (4) the exemplary damages award is grossly excessive. We affirm the trial court's
judgment.