Estate of Hoskins, 501 S.W.3d 295 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2016, no pet.).
Litigation over the testator’s estate had been
ongoing for thirty years. In an attempt to resolve some of the issues,
the probate court appointed a receiver with the limited duty of creating
a report on the status of the assets in the testator’s estate. The
appellate court agreed that under the facts of the case, the appointment
of a receiver was appropriate.
The court explained that the appointment of a
receiver is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. After
conducting a detailed review of prior litigation and the current status
of this protracted litigation, the court found that there was sufficient
evidence to support the appointment of a receiver. The court
acknowledged that receivership may be a severe remedy but that in this
case, the receiver’s duty was limited to preparing a report on estate
assets. The trustees and administrator retained the power and
responsibility to take action after reviewing the receiver’s report. The
court explained that “[r]ather than the harsh control of a true
receivership, the probate court’s order resembles another remedy: the
appointment of an auditor.” Hoskins at 309.
Moral: Trust Code § 114.008(a)(5)
authorizes the court to appoint a receiver if the facts so justify. An
appellate court will not set aside the appointment unless the judge
abused his or her discretion.