Estate of Lee Roy Hoskins Sr., 13-15-00487-CV

Background

Lee Roy “Cowboy” Hoskins, Sr.’s will created two testamentary trusts (Marital Deduction Trust and Residuary Trust) for the benefit of his wife Hazel; Hazel was originally executrix and trustee but resigned in 2014 and successor trustees were appointed.
Multiple family members have long‑running disputes; Len (a beneficiary) pursued arbitration in which an arbitrator earlier appointed Marcus Rogers as receiver of the Trust assets; that arbitration was later abated.
In county court, three grandchildren (Movants) moved to appoint Marcus Rogers receiver of the two Trusts, invoking Tex. Prop. Code §114.008, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 64, and equity; they asserted trustees lacked funds to prosecute potential trust claims.
The trial court held a hearing (no evidence was admitted; counsel argued and later filed briefs) and signed an interlocutory Order Appointing Receiver directing Rogers to prepare a report; the order did not empower Rogers to file suit absent further order.
Appellants (Cliff Hoskins and Hoskins, Inc.) appealed, arguing the appointment was unsupported by evidence or statutory/equitable authority and that Rogers is disqualified because he was being paid by a party (Len).

Issues

Issue	Movants' Argument	Appellants' Argument	Held (trial‑court action / posture)
Whether a receiver may be appointed without evidentiary support	Receiver appropriate based on counsel argument and perceived need (trustees lack resources; efficiency)	Appointment is an extraordinary remedy; no evidence was offered to justify it	Trial court appointed receiver after hearing where no evidence was admitted; interlocutory appeal filed contesting abuse of discretion
Whether Tex. Prop. Code §114.008 (remedy breach of trust) authorizes receivership	Statute allows receiver to remedy breaches of trust; receiver needed to pursue trust claims	Movants admitted current trustees are not accused of wrongdoing; §114.008 targets current trustees and is inapplicable when alleged misconduct (if any) is by former trustee	Trial court relied in part on statutory authority; appellants contend statute does not authorize relief sought
Whether Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §64.001 authorizes receivership (esp. subsection (a)(3) or (a)(6))	Chapter 64 and equity permit appointment to protect joint interests and pursue claims	No showing property is in danger of being lost/removed/injured under (a)(3); (a)(6) (equity) cannot be used to evade express statutory prerequisites	Trial court granted receivership; appellants argue failure to prove §64.001 elements and misuse of equity powers
Whether Marcus Rogers is disqualified because of financial interest	Movants relied on prior arbitrator appointment and asserted payment arrangement justified recognition	Appellants assert Rogers is not disinterested: he was paid by Len, creating bias and disqualification under receivership rules	Trial court appointed Rogers; appellants argue statutory disqualification and seek vacatur on that ground

Key Cases Cited

Bocquet v. Herring, 972 S.W.2d 19 (Tex. 1998) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and limits on trial court discretion)
Elliott v. Weatherman, 396 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (appointment of receiver reviewed for abuse of discretion; need for evidentiary support)
Krumnow v. Krumnow, 174 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005) (receivership is drastic and must be supported by evidence)
Hughes v. Marshall Nat’l Bank, 538 S.W.2d 820 (Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler 1976) (no receiver can be appointed without legal evidence of necessity)
Grinnell v. Munson, 137 S.W.3d 706 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004) (beneficiaries may enforce trust claims when trustee will not or cannot)
Interfirst Bank‑Houston, N.A. v. Quintana Petroleum Corp., 699 S.W.2d 864 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1985) (duties of trustees and when beneficiaries may act)
Spiritas v. Davidoff, 459 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2015) (standard of review for receivership orders)