Steven B. Aubrey, Individually, and as Beneficiary Of, on Behalf Of, and for The Benefit of the Aubrey Family Trust v. United Heritage Credit Union and Wilford P. Schroeder, Jr.
03-16-00233-CV
Tex. App.—WacoApr 12, 2017Background
- Decedent Richard B. Aubrey Sr.’s will created the Aubrey Family Trust naming his daughter Betsy Aubrey as sole beneficiary and trustee, with broad powers including sale and distribution of trust property and the right to distributions of income and principal; trust terminates at Betsy’s death, with remaining assets to living descendants per stirpes.
- In 2012 United Heritage Credit Union leased trust real property with an option to purchase; United Heritage exercised the option in April 2013 and paid $300,000 at closing after the trustee represented title defects would be corrected.
- Title to the property was conveyed (via corrective transfers) out of the Family Trust before United Heritage’s purchase, ultimately to Betsy and then to one of Steven Aubrey’s brothers; Aubrey alleges the sale deprived the Trust of proceeds and that United Heritage and its president Wilford Schroeder conspired with family members.
- Steven B. Aubrey (pro se) sued United Heritage, Schroeder, Betsy, and brothers asserting many claims (fraud, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, trespass to try title, civil conspiracy, etc.).
- United Heritage and Schroeder filed a plea to the jurisdiction arguing Aubrey lacked standing to sue on claims arising from injury to a trust of which he was not a beneficiary; the trial court granted the plea and dismissed Aubrey’s claims against them with prejudice; those claims were severed and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aubrey has standing to sue United Heritage and Schroeder for alleged damage to the Family Trust and its assets | Aubrey claimed a vested property interest/secondary beneficiary status and argued a derivative right to sue because the trustee refused to act and co-conspirators stripped the trust | Defendants argued Aubrey lacked standing because he was neither the trustee nor a present beneficiary and had no contractual or property interest at the time of sale; United Heritage paid fair value and was a third‑party purchaser for value | Court held Aubrey lacked standing; affirmed dismissal of claims against United Heritage and Schroeder |
Key Cases Cited
- Heckman v. Williamson Cty., 369 S.W.3d 137 (Tex. 2012) (plea to the jurisdiction standard and burden on plaintiff to show jurisdiction)
- Texas Dep’t of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (when plea challenges jurisdictional facts, court may consider evidence)
- Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2005) (standing requires sufficient relationship and justiciable interest)
- Texas Ass’n of Bus. v. Texas Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440 (Tex. 1993) (standing is component of subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In the Interest of B.I.V., 923 S.W.2d 573 (Tex. 1996) (standing requires personal stake in controversy)
- Davis v. First Nat’l Bank of Waco, 161 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. 1942) (expectant heir has no present interest to maintain suit for property enforcement)
- Moon v. Lesikar, 230 S.W.3d 800 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007) (contingent beneficiary lacked standing to challenge sale because no present interest)