Wendolyn Messner, as Dependent Administrator v. Mark L. Boon, and Boon Shaver Echols Coleman & Goolsby, P.L.L.C., 06-14-00020-CV

Decedent Delbert's estate involved trusts (including "Trust C") and a dispute over distribution to LeTourneau University and other beneficiaries.
Mark L. Boon represented the prior personal representative, Juanita Bengel, in probate litigation and later was deposed; appellant alleges Boon gave false deposition testimony about his concerns regarding Delbert's power of appointment.
Wendolyn Messner succeeded as personal representative and brought claims against Boon for breach of fiduciary duty and legal malpractice arising from his representation of Bengel and related conduct.
The trial court decided on motions for summary judgment; the court of appeals issued an opinion addressing some issues but (according to appellant) omitted or misstated certain facts and legal arguments.
Appellant moved for rehearing, arguing the court failed to address (1) whether false deposition testimony can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty, and (2) whether Texas Probate Code §224 (now Tex. Estates Code §361.153) permits a successor personal representative to sue for malpractice arising during a predecessor's administration.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Boon's alleged false deposition testimony can constitute a breach of fiduciary duty	Messner: False testimony and self‑dealing are dishonest, intentional acts supporting a breach of fiduciary duty	Boon: Allegations amount to negligence/non‑disclosure, not the type of intentional dishonesty needed for fiduciary breach	Court addressed only non‑disclosure theory (finding it insufficient); it did not resolve the false‑testimony theory (appellant faults the court for failing to rule)
Whether successor PR (Messner) may sue for malpractice for attorney acts during predecessor Bengel's administration under Probate Code §224	Messner: §224 transfers predecessor’s rights to successor, overcoming privity bar to malpractice claims on behalf of the estate	Boon: Lack of privity bars malpractice claims by successor for work performed for predecessor	Court rejected Messner’s arguments and sustained defendant’s privity defense for malpractice occurring during predecessor’s administration (appellant asks court to reconsider under §224)

Belt v. Oppenheimer, Blend, Harrison & Tate, Inc., 192 S.W.3d 780 (Tex. 2006) (privity rationale in malpractice context; estate interests mirror decedent’s)
Smith v. O’Donnell, 288 S.W.3d 417 (Tex. 2009) (estate interests mirror decedent; relevant to privity and standing arguments)
West v. Robinson, 180 S.W.3d 575 (Tex. 2005) (requiring courts of appeals to address all issues necessary to disposition)
Lujan v. Houston General Insurance Co., 756 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. 1988) (on appellate obligation to explain rulings when issues are raised)
Vinson & Elkins v. Moran, 946 S.W.2d 381 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1997) (successor representative can "step into the shoes" of predecessor under former Probate Code §224 for malpractice claims)
Isaacs v. Schleier, 356 S.W.3d 548 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011) (discussing fiduciary‑duty standards and the level of dishonesty required)
Borissoff v. Taylor & Faust, 15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 735 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (California authority interpreting a statute similar to §224 to overcome privity defense)
Bookman v. Davidson, 136 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014) (Florida authority holding a similar statute overcame privity for successor representative malpractice claims)