In re Troy S. Poe Tr.
| Docket Number | 08-18-00074-CV |
| Decision Date | 28 July 2023 |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF TROY S. POE TRUST |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Probate Court No. 1 of El Paso County, Texas (TC# 2016-CPR00308)
Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, J. Soto, J.
Before us is a hotly contested trust-modification proceeding with the underlying question of whether the parties have a constitutional jury-trial right. This case was brought in an El Paso statutory probate court; from there, it was appealed to this Court, then to the Texas Supreme Court, and remanded back to this Court. The Texas Supreme Court held that there is no statutory right to a jury trial in a Texas Trust Code § 112.054 trust-modification proceeding and tasked this Court with determining the novel issue of whether Texas Constitution Article V, § 10 (the Judiciary Article) guarantees the parties a jury-trial right in such a proceeding. We conclude that there is no Judiciary Article jury-trial right in the present case and review the probate court's judgment modifying the trust following a bench trial. Based on the reasoning below, we affirm the trial court's judgment.
As the Texas Supreme Court laid out the detailed facts in its remand opinion, we provide only a general factual and procedural overview below. Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d 771, 773-76 (Tex. 2022).
Richard "Dick" Poe (Dick) created the "Troy S. Poe Trust" (the Trust) in 2007 to provide for the "health, education, maintenance and support" of his son, Troy, who has cerebral palsy and requires constant care. Id. at 773. The trustees appointed to administer the Trust were Dick; Dick's only other child, Richard Poe (Richard); and Dick's longtime accountant, Anthony Bock (Bock). Id.
The Trust is a party to a long-term "Care Agreement," setting forth the terms under which Troy's caregiver Angel Reyes (Reyes), would care for Troy and receive compensation therefor. Id. Under the Care Agreement Reyes and his family live with Troy in a home Dick built and provide Troy full-time care. Id. In addition to meeting Troy's daily needs, Reyes's duties include ensuring that Troy enjoys "a wholesome and healthy home environment," "companionship," and "social interaction and entertainment to the extent possible." Id. In exchange, Reyes is paid a salary and reimbursed for "reasonable out-of-pocket expenses for Troy's care." Id.
While the Trust provided that the three trustees were to act "jointly," prior to his death, Dick unilaterally administered the Trust without objection from Richard or Bock. Id. After Dick died in 2015, Bock unilaterally administered the Trust, making distributions he believed mirrored Dick's past practices. Id. at 773-74. Richard eventually objected and demanded that Bock consult with him in administering the Trust. Id. at 774. Bock began consulting with Richard, but the two had a "fraught relationship," which in part stemmed from other disagreements over financial matters unrelated to the Trust, some of which resulted in litigation.[1] Richard and Bock disagreed on various trust administration issues, including making the types of generous Trust distributions Dick had routinely made. Id. at 774. In addition, Richard accused Bock of "stealing" from the Trust and objected to distributions that Richard argued benefitted Reyes and his family rather than Troy. Id.
Unable to reach unanimous decisions, Bock filed a petition in the probate court to modify the Trust under Trust Code § 112.054. Id. at 774. Bock asked the court to add a third trustee, remove the unanimity requirement, and specify the relevant considerations governing the Trust's distributions. Troy, acting through his court-appointed guardian ad litem and attorney ad litem, supported Bock's modification request. Richard opposed the modification and counterclaimed against Bock for breach of trust. Id. He demanded a jury trial on all triable issues of fact on Bock's petition to modify and on the counterclaim. Id.
The probate court denied Richard's jury demand on the modification petition and conducted a two-day bench trial. Id. at 774-75. At trial, several witnesses (including Bock) testified to Dick's purpose in establishing the trust, which they believed was to ensure that Troy maintained a happy and healthy lifestyle commensurate with Dick's financial status.
Following trial, the probate court found that because of "changed circumstances" since Dick's death, "the purposes of the Trust have become impossible to fulfill, and modification will further the Trust purposes." Id. at 775. The court entered an Order Modifying Trust effecting several changes to the Trust's terms in accordance with Bock's requests. Id. at 775. The probate court severed the remaining claims and set Richard's breach-of-trust counterclaim for a jury trial. Id. The modification order became a final judgment. Id.
Richard appealed the trial court's modification order, arguing that (1) he was erroneously denied a jury trial, and (2) the modifications contravened Dick's intent. Opining that the Trust Code provided a statutory jury-trial right in a trust-modification proceeding, this Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the matter for a new trial before a jury. Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 591 S.W.3d 168, 178 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2019), rev'd, 646 S.W.3d 771 (Tex. 2022).
On appeal, the Texas Supreme Court disagreed that the Trust Code conferred a statutory jury-trial right but remanded the case to this Court to address the novel issue of whether parties to such a trust-modification proceeding have a constitutional jury-trial right. Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d at 777-78, 780-81.
As the Texas Supreme Court recognized in Poe, the 1876 Texas Constitution-our current Constitution along with multiple amendments-contains two provisions speaking to a jury-trial right in civil cases. Id. at 778 (citing Barshop v. Medina Cnty. Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 636 (Tex. 1996).
First, the Bill of Rights states the "right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate." TEX. CONST. art. I, § 15. This provision maintains a jury-trial right for the type of actions tried by jury when the Constitution was adopted and thus "only applies if, in 1876, a jury would have been allowed to try the action or an analogous action." Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d at 778 (citing Barshop, 925 S.W.2d at 636); see also Cockrill v. Cox, 65 Tex. 669, 674 (1886) (reinforcing the same). And in 1876, there was no right to a jury trial in equitable actions; consequently, the Bill of Rights did "not alter the common law tradition eschewing juries in equity." Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d at 778 (quoting Casa El Sol-Acapulco, S.A. v. Fontenot, 919 S.W.2d 709, 715 ()). Insofar as trust-deviation proceedings existed in 1876, they were considered equitable in nature, such that there would have been no jury-trial right at that time. See generally Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d at 778; see also Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d at 782 (Busby, J. concurring) (). Therefore, as the parties concede, there is no jury-trial right in a trust-modification proceeding under the Bill of Rights.
Second, the "Judiciary Article" states:
In the trial of all causes in the District Courts, the plaintiff or defendant shall, upon application made in open court, have the right of trial by jury; but no jury shall be empaneled in any civil case unless demanded by a party to the case, and a jury fee be paid by the party demanding a jury, for such sum, and with such exceptions as may be prescribed by the Legislature.
In contrast with the Bill of Rights, this provision expanded the jury-trial right to all "causes" in both law and equity, regardless of whether a jury trial was available for the same in 1876. Matter of Troy S. Poe Tr., 646 S.W.3d at 778 (citing Texas Workers' Comp. Comm'n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504, 527 (Tex. 1995)). However, there are differences in opinion regarding how the term "causes" in this provision should be defined. Id. at 778-81.
Below, we review Texas court opinions discussing the Judiciary Article's jury-trial right over time to arrive at a workable framework for determining what constitutes a Judiciary Article "cause." Then we consider whether a statutory trust-modification proceeding is such a cause.[2]
Richard argues that "cause" includes virtually any "contested" case with a factual dispute suitable for a jury to resolve. And he contends that Bock's modification petition raises at least two factual disputes suitable for jury review: whether the trust purposes have become impossible to fulfill and whether changed circumstances unforeseen to the settlor warrant a modification. Richard then advocates for what appears to be a two-step process. The jury would resolve the factual disputes while the probate court would ultimately determine, as a matter of equity, whether and how to modify the trust terms depending on its factual findings.
Bock on the other hand, argues that "cause" should include only "ordinary" causes of action, also referred to as "personal" actions, in which a plaintiff is seeking a personal judgment against a defendant based on the defendant's breach of a duty or other wrongdoing. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial