Statute of Limitations Bars Trust Beneficiaries' Claims

Trust Law Controversies

Statute of Limitations Bars Trust Beneficiaries’ Claims Despite Trustee’s Deliberate Concealment—Constructive Notice of Probate Records Is Irrebuttable

Prepared March 15, 2026

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas, Houston (1st District)

Date: February 26, 2026

Citation: Conover v. Conover, No. 01-24-00471-CV, 2026 WL 530390 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Feb. 26, 2026)

Summary of Relevant Facts

William Van Conover III (“Van”) died in July 2001, leaving two daughters: Rachel (age 10) and Katherine (age 4). Van’s will devised his residuary estate to his father, Bill, as trustee for the girls. Van’s estate was valued at over $4 million, including business interests (Lagniappe Farms and Lagniappe Interests) valued at $1 each on the inventory. Bill did not establish the trusts until 2010—nine years after Van’s death—and funded each with only $619,504. Bill consistently refused to provide information about the trusts, telling the girls they were entitled to know everything only at age 35. The girls’ grandmother warned both their mother and Rachel directly that Bill had a history of mismanaging trusts (having previously been removed as trustee in prior litigation), but they did not believe her. When Bill died in 2021, Rachel and Katherine discovered the estate tax return showing over $4 million and the suspicious $1 valuations.

Procedural Background

The daughters sued the co-executors of Bill’s estate for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud by non-disclosure, and sued Bill’s widow, Connie, for unjust enrichment and constructive trust. The co-executors moved for traditional summary judgment on limitations grounds. The trial court granted the motion, entering final judgment that all parties take nothing. The daughters appealed.

Main Controversies

The main controversies were: (1) whether the daughters’ claims were barred by the two-to-four-year statutes of limitations; (2) whether the discovery rule deferred accrual because the injury was “inherently undiscoverable”; (3) whether the fraudulent concealment doctrine tolled limitations; and (4) whether the daughters, as beneficiaries of testamentary trusts, were “interested persons” charged with constructive notice of publicly available probate records.

Position of the Parties

The daughters argued that Bill’s deliberate concealment made the injury inherently undiscoverable, that they were not “interested persons” in Van’s estate because Bill took as trustee on their behalf, and that the fraudulent concealment doctrine should toll limitations. The co-executors argued the daughters were interested persons with an irrebuttable presumption of constructive notice of probate records that disclosed the estate’s true value, and that multiple red flags should have prompted inquiry within the limitations period.

Holding or Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment, holding all claims time-barred. The daughters were “interested persons” under the Texas Estates Code with constructive notice of publicly available probate records. Neither the discovery rule nor the fraudulent concealment doctrine saved the claims.

Reasons for the Decision

The court held that the Texas Estates Code defines “interested person” broadly to include anyone with a legally ascertained pecuniary interest affected by probate proceedings. As beneficiaries of testamentary trusts created under Van’s will, the daughters clearly qualified. Texas law charges interested persons with an irrebuttable presumption of actual notice of probate records’ contents—a presumption that cannot be contradicted by evidence of a good relationship with the fiduciary or misleading conduct. The probate records disclosed the estate’s $4 million value, the suspicious $1 business valuations, and annual income generation. Combined with the grandmother’s warnings, Bill’s refusal to provide information, and Rachel’s 2010 concern about exhausting trust funds, these facts would have alerted a reasonably prudent person to investigate. The court held the injury was not “inherently undiscoverable” because the very information that prompted the daughters’ claims was available in the probate records all along. Even assuming fraudulent concealment, tolling ceases when facts come to light triggering inquiry notice, which occurred no later than 2015 when Katherine turned 18.