Remedy for Statutory Accounting Breach Limited to Attorney's Fees

Trust Law Controversies

Remedy for Statutory Accounting Breach Limited to Attorney’s Fees—Unchallenged Summary Judgment Survives Reversal of Final Judgment

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (14th District)

Date: March 3, 2026

Citation: Marshall v. Marshall, No. 14-23-00276-CV, 2026 WL 585070 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 3, 2026)

Summary of Relevant Facts

The dispute involved the Marshall Grandchildren’s Trust, with Elaine T. Marshall serving as trustee and Preston Marshall as an interested party. Preston claimed Elaine failed to provide a statutory accounting of the trust as required under the Texas Property Code. The litigation involved the broader Marshall/Koch family interests and cross-jurisdictional trust transactions spanning Texas and Wyoming.

Procedural Background

The trial court granted summary judgment finding that Elaine had failed to comply with her duty to provide a trust accounting under Texas Property Code § 113.151. In a prior proceeding, the appellate court reversed the final judgment and remanded for a new trial on other issues. Both parties filed motions for rehearing seeking clarification of whether the reversal affected the accounting ruling and whether Preston’s accounting claim included damages or only attorney’s fees.

Main Controversies

The controversies were: (1) whether the appellate court’s reversal of the final judgment disturbed the trial court’s unchallenged summary judgment ruling on the accounting claim; and (2) whether the remedy for breach of the statutory duty to provide an accounting includes compensatory damages or is limited to attorney’s fees.

Position of the Parties

Preston sought confirmation that the accounting ruling survived the reversal and that attorney’s fees remained recoverable. Elaine argued that the accounting claim on remand should be limited to attorney’s fees only, that compensatory damages were not an available remedy, and that because the accounting had been provided and the trust had terminated, the underlying claim was moot.

Holding or Decision

The Court of Appeals clarified that the reversal had no effect on the unchallenged summary judgment finding that Elaine breached her accounting duty. However, the remedy for a statutory accounting claim is limited to attorney’s fees—compensatory damages are not available. Preston’s request for attorney’s fees kept the claim a live controversy on remand despite the trust’s termination.

Reasons for the Decision

The court reasoned that an appellate reversal addresses only the parties’ specific arguments on appeal and the challenged portions of the judgment. Because Elaine did not challenge the accounting ruling on appeal, it remained undisturbed. Citing Texas State Bank v. Amaro, the court held that the remedy for a statutory accounting claim under § 113.151 does not include compensatory damages; it is limited to compelling the accounting and awarding attorney’s fees for enforcing that right. This distinction between procedural/compliance breaches and substantive fiduciary duty claims means that failure to account, while a breach, carries a narrowly tailored remedy. Even though the trust had terminated and the accounting was eventually provided, the attorney’s fees issue remained a live controversy requiring resolution.