Kenneth L. Berry, Individually Kenneth L. Berry, as Trustee of the Berry Dynasty Trust Kenneth L. Berry, Trustee in a Derivative Capacity for Flying Bull Ranch, Ltd. And Chelsea Nichole Briers v. Dennis W. Berry Marvin G. Berry Allen L. Berry Fb Ranch, LLC Berry Gp, Inc. D/B/A Berry Contracting, Inc. Berry Contracting, Lp D/B/A Bay, Ltd. And Berry Ranches, Llc, 646 S.W.3d 516

Background

Marvin and Laura Berry formed Flying Bull Ranch, Ltd. (Partnership) in 1997; the Berry Dynasty Trust (Trust) owns 98% of the Partnership, which in turn owns the Ranch. The Trust names the four sons as demand beneficiaries and appoints four co‑trustees (the sons).
For years Berry Contracting (family business) used the Ranch under oral leases ($40,000/yr); Kenneth alleges rent was underpaid, misdirected to other family entities, and that a 2007 written lease (retroactive to 2000) improperly granted an excessive term and reduced Trust/Partnership receipts.
Family members (except Kenneth and his daughter Chelsea) later executed a Consent Agreement that: acknowledged misdeposits and transferred $440,000 to the Partnership, amended the lease to a 3‑year term, and released claims; Kenneth and Chelsea did not sign.
Kenneth (as beneficiary, trustee, and derivative plaintiff) and Chelsea (as Trust beneficiary) sued in 2016 for breach of fiduciary duty, removal, accounting, and related relief; defendants moved for summary judgment asserting limitations and that plaintiffs lacked statutory authority to sue.
The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all plaintiffs’ claims; the court of appeals reversed in part (reviving some of Kenneth’s claims on limitations grounds) and affirmed dismissal of Chelsea; Texas Supreme Court granted review.
Texas Supreme Court: affirmed dismissal of all of Kenneth’s claims (limitations and inability to act unilaterally for the Trust/Partnership), held Chelsea—an unnamed but express beneficiary with present and contingent interests—is an “interested person” authorized to bring trust proceedings, reversed dismissal of her claims, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kenneth’s breach‑of‑fiduciary‑duty claims are barred by the 4‑year statute of limitations	Kenneth: discovery rule delayed accrual; he did not discover the 2007 lease until 2015	Defendants: alleged wrongs occurred 2000–2007; Kenneth had actual/constructive notice and duty as trustee to investigate	Held: Claims time‑barred; discovery rule inapplicable because Kenneth had knowledge/duty and could have discovered recorded memorandum; summary judgment affirmed as to Kenneth
Whether Chelsea (unnamed beneficiary) is an “interested person” authorized to bring trust proceedings (accounting/removal/breach claims)	Chelsea: as a demand beneficiary she has present financial withdrawal rights and contingent distribution rights—sufficient interest to sue	Defendants: she is not a named beneficiary and lacks a present interest to maintain trust actions	Held: Chelsea is an interested person under the Property Code (present and contingent interests qualify); her dismissal was erroneous; reversal as to Chelsea
Whether a lone co‑trustee (Kenneth) may sue on behalf of the Trust over the opposition of a majority of co‑trustees	Kenneth: as trustee he may vindicate Trust rights in court	Defendants: trustees act by majority; a single trustee cannot unilaterally bring Trust claims when majority opposes	Held: Trustees act by majority; Kenneth cannot unilaterally sue for the Trust; dismissal affirmed
Whether Kenneth can bring derivative claims on behalf of the Partnership	Kenneth: may sue derivatively as to breaches by the general partner that harmed the Partnership/Trust	Defendants: the limited partner is the Trust (not Kenneth); only the Trust (through its authorized representatives) may bring partnership derivative claims	Held: Kenneth lacks derivative standing because he is not the limited partner and cannot unilaterally act for the Trust; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (summary‑judgment review is de novo)
Eagle Oil & Gas Co. v. TRO‑X, L.P., 619 S.W.3d 699 (Tex. 2021) (four‑year limitations for breach of fiduciary duty)
Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Knott, 128 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2003) (cause of action accrues when facts authorizing suit exist)
S.V. v. R.V., 933 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule and inherently undiscoverable injuries)
Little v. Smith, 943 S.W.2d 414 (Tex. 1997) (discovery rule requires plaintiff knew or should have known with reasonable diligence)
Archer v. Tregellas, 566 S.W.3d 281 (Tex. 2019) (recorded instruments generally give constructive notice; limited exception when plaintiff had no reason to monitor records)
Ditta v. Conte, 298 S.W.3d 187 (Tex. 2009) (trustee removal suits and limitations context)
Pike v. Texas EMC Management, LLC, 610 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2020) (distinguishing statutory authorization to sue from jurisdictional standing)
Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 918 S.W.2d 453 (Tex. 1996) (discovery rule applies only in exceptional cases; fiduciary relationship does not eliminate duty to investigate)
Linegar v. DLA Piper LLP (US), 495 S.W.3d 276 (Tex. 2016) (trustees’ duties include holding, protecting, and being informed about trust assets)