Sec. 115.001. JURISDICTION. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (d) of this section, a district court has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings by or against a trustee and all proceedings concerning trusts, including proceedings to:
(1) construe a trust instrument;
(2) determine the law applicable to a trust instrument;
(3) appoint or remove a trustee;
(4) determine the powers, responsibilities, duties, and liability of a trustee;
(5) ascertain beneficiaries;
(6) make determinations of fact affecting the administration, distribution, or duration of a trust;
(7) determine a question arising in the administration or distribution of a trust;
(8) relieve a trustee from any or all of the duties, limitations, and restrictions otherwise existing under the terms of the trust instrument or of this subtitle;
(9) require an accounting by a trustee, review trustee fees, and settle interim or final accounts; and
(10) surcharge a trustee.
(a-1) The list of proceedings described by Subsection (a) over which a district court has exclusive and original jurisdiction is not exhaustive. A district court has exclusive and original jurisdiction over a proceeding by or against a trustee or a proceeding concerning a trust under Subsection (a) whether or not the proceeding is listed in Subsection (a).
(b) The district court may exercise the powers of a court of equity in matters pertaining to trusts.
(c) The court may intervene in the administration of a trust to the extent that the court's jurisdiction is invoked by an interested person or as otherwise provided by law. A trust is not subject to continuing judicial supervision unless the court orders continuing judicial supervision.
(d) The jurisdiction of the district court is exclusive except for jurisdiction conferred by law on:
(1) a statutory probate court;
(2) a court that creates a trust under Subchapter B, Chapter 1301, Estates Code;
(3) a court that creates a trust under Section 142.005;
(4) a justice court under Chapter 27, Government Code; or
(5) a county court at law.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 3332, ch. 567, art. 2, Sec. 2, eff. Jan. 1, 1984; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1375, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 148 (H.B. 1190), Sec. 22, eff. January 1, 2006.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 451 (H.B. 564), Sec. 11, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2011, 82nd Leg., R.S., Ch. 657 (S.B. 1197), Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2011.
Acts 2017, 85th Leg., R.S., Ch. 324 (S.B. 1488), Sec. 22.060, eff. September 1, 2017.
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. Houston Firemen's Relief & Ret. Fund, 121 S.W.3d 415 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “[8] Williams did not always clearly distinguish, either here or below, his summary judgment and appellate challenges asserted against the trustees individually from those asserted against them in their official capacities.”
Carroll v. Carroll, 304 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Nothing in the Texas Government Code confers jurisdiction upon the Hill County Court at Law over proceedings listed in Texas Property Code section 115.001. See id.”
Gammill v. Fettner, 297 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “001 stated that a district court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings concerning trusts, including proceedings to “make determinations of fact affecting the administration, distribution, or duration of a trust” and “determine a question arising in the…”
Barrientos v. Nava, 94 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(3). In twenty-two points of error related to the trial court’s removal of Barbara as trustee, she complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support her removal under the specific grounds enumerated in section 113.”
Herring v. Welborn, 27 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “; see TEX. PROP.CODE § 115.001(a) (Vernon 1995).”
Krumnow v. Krumnow, 174 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(a) (Vernon Supp.”
In the Est. of Gaines, 262 S.W.3d 50 (Tex. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001 (Vernon 2007), amended by Tex.”
In Re Est. of Dillard, 98 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), & (9) (Vernon Supp.”
In Re Stark, 126 S.W.3d 635 (Tex. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Tex. Prop. Code Ann. § 115.001 (a) (Vernon Supp.”
Schuele v. Schuele, 119 S.W.3d 822 (Tex. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Tex. PROp.Code Ann. § 115.001 (Vernon Supp.”
Texas State Bank v. Amaro, 87 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. 2002).
“Tex. Prop.Code § 115.001 (providing for the original and exclusive jurisdiction of a district court "over all proceedings concerning trusts, including proceedings to: .”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(3) — 1 case
Barrientos v. Nava, 94 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App. 2002).
“See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(3). In twenty-two points of error related to the trial court’s removal of Barbara as trustee, she complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support her removal under the specific grounds enumerated in section 113.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a) — 30 cases
Williams v. Houston Firemen's Relief & Ret. Fund, 121 S.W.3d 415 (Tex. App. 2003).
“[8] Williams did not always clearly distinguish, either here or below, his summary judgment and appellate challenges asserted against the trustees individually from those asserted against them in their official capacities.”
Carroll v. Carroll, 304 S.W.3d 366 (Tex. 2010).
“Nothing in the Texas Government Code confers jurisdiction upon the Hill County Court at Law over proceedings listed in Texas Property Code section 115.001. See id.”
Herring v. Welborn, 27 S.W.3d 132 (Tex. App. 2000).
“; see TEX. PROP.CODE § 115.001(a) (Vernon 1995).”
Krumnow v. Krumnow, 174 S.W.3d 820 (Tex. App. 2005).
“Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(a) (Vernon Supp.”
Gammill v. Fettner, 297 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App. 2009).
“001 stated that a district court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings concerning trusts, including proceedings to “make determinations of fact affecting the administration, distribution, or duration of a trust” and “determine a question arising in the…”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a)(1) — 4 cases
Williams v. Houston Firemen's Relief & Ret. Fund, 121 S.W.3d 415 (Tex. App. 2003).
“[8] Williams did not always clearly distinguish, either here or below, his summary judgment and appellate challenges asserted against the trustees individually from those asserted against them in their official capacities.”
In Re Est. of Dillard, 98 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2003).
“Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), & (9) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a)(3) — 1 case
Barrientos v. Nava, 94 S.W.3d 270 (Tex. App. 2002).
“See Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(3). In twenty-two points of error related to the trial court’s removal of Barbara as trustee, she complains that the evidence was legally and factually insufficient to support her removal under the specific grounds enumerated in section 113.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a)(6) — 2 cases
Gammill v. Fettner, 297 S.W.3d 792 (Tex. App. 2009).
“001 stated that a district court had original and exclusive jurisdiction over all proceedings concerning trusts, including proceedings to “make determinations of fact affecting the administration, distribution, or duration of a trust” and “determine a question arising in the…”
In Re Est. of Dillard, 98 S.W.3d 386 (Tex. App. 2003).
“Tex. Prop.Code Ann. § 115.001(a)(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), & (9) (Vernon Supp.”
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(a)(9) — 2 cases
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(c) — 4 cases
— Tex. Prop. Code § 115.001(d) — 4 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.