in the Matter of Troy S. Poe Trust, 646 S.W.3d 771

Background

This is a concurring opinion (Justice Busby, joined by Justices Devine and Young) in In the Matter of Troy S. Poe Trust concerning whether the Texas Judiciary Article (Art. V, §10) guarantees a jury trial in a trust-modification suit under Tex. Prop. Code §112.054.
The concurrence emphasizes that the Texas Constitution guarantees the right to jury trial twice (Art. I, §15 and Art. V, §10) and critiques longstanding case-by-case exceptions that have eroded the plain meaning of "all causes."
The court of appeals had held a jury trial was required based on the Trust Code’s incorporation of the Rules of Civil Procedure; the Supreme Court remanded for the court of appeals to address an alternative constitutional ground that petitioners raised late in that court.
Justice Busby agrees with the remand and urges the court of appeals to analyze the constitutional question in the first instance, focusing on the 1876 meaning of "cause" and the historical context of the Judiciary Article.
The concurrence proposes a structured framework distilled from precedent: (1) Art. I, §15 (Bill of Rights) applies where the action existed at common law in 1876; (2) Art. V, §10 extends to equitable causes but requires distinguishing factual issues (for a jury) from equitable-discretion questions (for the court); (3) ancillary or remedial proceedings that lack the essential characteristics of a cause need not have juries; and (4) some proceedings are governed by other constitutional provisions that displace a jury right.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Art. V §10 guarantees a jury trial in a trust-modification suit under Tex. Prop. Code §112.054	Petitioners: trust modification involves disputed fact questions (changed circumstances, impossibility) and thus falls within the Judiciary Article’s "all causes" guarantee	Respondents/Trust: modification is equitable/discretionary; judges make ultimate equitable determinations and a jury is unsuitable	Court remanded to court of appeals to decide the constitutional question in the first instance; no Supreme Court ruling on the constitutional issue here
Whether the Trust Code’s incorporation of the Rules of Civil Procedure creates a statutory jury right	Court of appeals: statutory incorporation requires honoring a jury demand	Opposing view: statutory procedure cannot answer the constitutional question; relying on the statute was incorrect	Justice Busby agrees the court-of-appeals’ statutory holding was incorrect and remand is appropriate
Whether Art. I §15 or Art. V §10 governs the jury right for this proceeding	One side: apply Bill-of-Rights historical/common-law test (jury right where analogous to 1876 jury actions)	Other side: apply Judiciary Article, which may extend jury protection to equitable causes beyond 1876 common-law actions	Concurrence: framework—use Art. I §15 for common-law analogues; use Art. V §10 for equitable causes and then decide fact vs. equitable-discretion questions
How to treat mixed fact/equity questions (what the jury decides vs. court)	Petitioners: material disputed facts (e.g., changed circumstances, impossibility) must be tried by a jury	Respondents: weighing of equities, forward-looking or policy-laden issues (expediency, public interest, degree of harm) are for the court	Concurrence: jury decides disputed historical or ultimate fact issues needed to resolve equitable relief; court decides discretionary, policy, forward-looking, and weighing-of-equities questions; remand to apply these principles

Key Cases Cited

Forbau v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 876 S.W.2d 132 (Tex. 1994) (describing jury-trial right as a substantive liberty guarantee)
White v. White, 196 S.W. 508 (Tex. 1917) (historical importance of jury trial in Texas jurisprudence)
State v. Credit Bureau of Laredo, Inc., 530 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1975) (cataloguing "special circumstances" where Judiciary Article jury right was held inapplicable)
Tex. Workers’ Comp. Comm’n v. Garcia, 893 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. 1995) (distinguishing the two constitutional jury guarantees)
Barshop v. Medina Cnty. Underground Water Conserv’n Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618 (Tex. 1996) (Bill of Rights preserves jury rights for actions or analogues tried to a jury in 1876)
Hill v. Shamoun & Norman, LLP, 544 S.W.3d 724 (Tex. 2018) (if contested fact issues must be resolved before equitable relief, a jury may be required)
Burrow v. Arce, 997 S.W.2d 229 (Tex. 1999) (delineating jury factfinding versus court’s equitable discretion)
San Jacinto Oil Co. v. Culberson, 101 S.W. 197 (Tex. 1907) (Judiciary Article secures jury for disputed factual issues in equitable proceedings)
Tex. Pet Foods, Inc., 591 S.W.2d 800 (Tex. 1979) (a jury does not decide expediency, necessity, or propriety of equitable relief)
Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Sheppard, 282 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2008) (a jury may have to settle disputed issues about what happened)