Terry W. BRADLEY, Appellant v. Darlene SHAFFER, Individually, and Verlon Reid, Noleta Rice, and S. Clinton Nix, Co-Trustees of the W.S. Shaffer Family Trust, Appellees, 535 S.W.3d 242

W.S. and E.S. Shaffer’s mineral interests ultimately were placed in the W.S. Shaffer Family Trust in 1993; settlors/initial beneficiaries’ shares were fixed at creation.
Trust granted trustees broad powers (including sale/lease) and contained a spendthrift clause barring beneficiaries from assigning or encumbering their trust interests.
Clarence Shaffer’s vested one-quarter beneficial interest passed at his 1999 death to his children Darell and Darlene; trustees hold legal title, beneficiaries hold equitable title.
Darell conveyed the surface to Bradley in 2004 (warranty deed without mineral reservation) and executed a 2006 mineral deed to Bradley purporting to convey his beneficial mineral interest in the trust (including future interests).
Trustees and Darlene sued for declaratory relief before the trust’s 2013 20-year term expired; during litigation beneficiaries unanimously executed a written 20-year extension in 2013.
Trial court granted partial summary judgment declaring Darell’s 2004 and 2006 deeds void as to the mineral interests; appeal challenges (1) trust extension under the rule against perpetuities, (2) after-acquired title to Bradley if trust invalid, and (3) legitimacy of the late-produced extension agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Bradley)	Defendant's Argument (Trustees/Darlene)	Held
Does the trust’s extension violate the rule against perpetuities?	Extension could allow vesting beyond lives-in-being +21 years; court should strike extension, terminating trust 6/23/2013.	Beneficial interests vested at trust creation and on deaths of settlors; extension affects duration not vesting so it does not violate the rule.	Court: Trust does not violate the rule; vesting occurred within allowed period; extension valid.
If trust terminated, did after-acquired title pass to Bradley?	If trust terminated 6/23/2013, title passed from Darell to Bradley via after-acquired title under prior warranty deed/deeds.	Conveyances by beneficiary were void under the trust’s spendthrift clause and thus could not later be validated by after-acquired title.	Court: After-acquired title does not apply to void conveyances; Bradley’s after-acquired title claim fails.
Is the 2013 extension unenforceable because it was produced late in summary-judgment proceedings?	Late disclosure undermines legitimacy; extension should not be considered for summary judgment.	Trustees argued conveyances were void at inception due to spendthrift clause; extension’s late production does not negate its validity.	Court: Late production did not invalidate the extension; no authority supports Bradley’s objection.

BP Am. Prod. Co. v. Laddex, Ltd., 513 S.W.3d 476 (Tex. 2017) (rule against perpetuities applied to instrument as executed; prefer interpretation that renders instrument valid)
Franke v. Franke, 545 S.W.2d 545 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1976) (trust duration distinct from vesting; spendthrift trusts not per se violative of perpetuities rule)
Kelly v. Womack, 268 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. 1954) (rule focuses on vesting of interests, not duration)
Rekdahl v. Long, 417 S.W.2d 387 (Tex. 1967) (remainder-to-issue can produce substitutional takers so vesting occurs at parent’s death)
Faulkner v. Bost, 137 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004) (beneficiaries hold equitable title; power to transfer subject to trust terms)
Burns v. Miller, Hiersche, Martens & Hayward, P.C., 948 S.W.2d 317 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1997) (Texas enforces spendthrift provisions as settlor’s right to control gift)
Houston First Am. Sav. v. Musick, 650 S.W.2d 764 (Tex. 1983) (doctrine of after-acquired title and its operation following warranties)
Pascoe v. Keuhnast, 642 S.W.2d 37 (Tex. App.—Waco 1982) (doctrine of after-acquired title does not validate conveyances that were void at the time made)