When a family fight over trusts spills across state lines, you can end up with one court saying one thing and another court saying the opposite. A trustee who wins in one state will naturally want to use that win everywhere else. But a favorable judgment from another state’s court does not automatically erase a Texas court’s orders. That is especially true when the Texas order is a temporary injunction protecting trust assets while the case plays out.
The question this raises comes up more than you might think: can a trustee who wins a favorable ruling in another state walk into a Texas court and use that ruling to dissolve a Texas temporary injunction? In other words, is an out-of-state win a “changed circumstance” that lets the trustee escape the injunction? The answer turns on a procedural rule that catches a lot of litigants off guard.
The court addressed this in Marshall v. Marshall, No. 14-25-00322-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Mar. 3, 2026). The case grew out of a fight over a family fortune—Koch Industries stock held in a web of trusts spread across Texas, Louisiana, and Wyoming. It shows why a Texas temporary injunction can outlast a contrary judgment from another state.
Facts and Procedural History
J. Howard Marshall, II owned Marshall Petroleum, which held shares in Koch Industries and Koch Holdings. When Howard died in 1995, his son E. Pierce Marshall, Sr. (“Pierce”) inherited the Koch non-voting stock. Pierce was married to Elaine Marshall, and they had two sons—Pierce, Jr. and Preston. Preston ends up as the central figure in this dispute.
Pierce died in 2006, and before he did, he set up a network of trusts. Through his will he created the Testamentary Marital Income Trust (the “Marital Trust”), with Elaine as both trustee and income beneficiary. When Elaine dies, what is left of the Marital Trust passes in equal shares to the Osprey Trust (for Pierce, Jr.) and the Harrier Trust (for Preston). Pierce also created the Harrier and Falcon Trusts—irrevocable trusts governed by Louisiana law, with Elaine as trustee. The Harrier Trust was funded with just $1,000 at the start, so Preston is counting on the Marital Trust eventually feeding into it when Elaine dies.
The trouble started when Elaine, as trustee of the Marital Trust, merged it into a newly created Wyoming trust—the transactions the parties came to call the “Wyoming Transactions.” Preston was not part of those deals. Then, in 2016, Elaine appointed five co-trustees to manage the Harrier and Falcon Trusts and set their combined pay at up to 40% of the trusts’ gross annual receipts. Preston said this was a way to strip assets away from him.
In October 2015, Preston sued Elaine in Harris County Probate Court, claiming she had breached her fiduciary duties through the Wyoming Transactions and the co-trustee appointments. In July 2017, the probate court granted a temporary injunction. It barred Elaine from transferring trust assets, appointing more co-trustees, paying the co-trustees, or otherwise modifying the Marital Trust, the Harrier and Falcon Trusts, the Lead Trust, and Grandchildren’s Trust #2.
At the same time, Elaine was litigating in Louisiana. She got a declaration there that her appointment of the five co-trustees was valid under Louisiana law. Then, in 2024 and 2025, the Louisiana trial court issued a broad judgment finding that Elaine committed no breaches of fiduciary duty as to the Harrier and Falcon Trusts and approving all of the trust accountings from 2006 through 2022. With those rulings in hand, Elaine went back to Harris County and moved to dissolve the temporary injunction. The trial court said no, and Elaine appealed.
What It Takes to Dissolve a Texas Temporary Injunction
A temporary injunction in Texas does one thing: it preserves the status quo while the case heads to trial. The Texas Supreme Court defines the “status quo” as the last, actual, peaceable, non-contested condition that came before the dispute. In a trust case, that usually means keeping the trustee from moving or draining assets before the court can sort out the underlying claims.
A trial court can dissolve a temporary injunction only on a showing of fundamental error or changed circumstances. Changed circumstances are conditions that alter the status quo after the injunction was granted and make it unnecessary or improper. The party asking for dissolution has to come forward with new evidence of those changed circumstances. It is not enough to argue that the original injunction was wrong or that the other side’s claims have no merit.
If the trial court denies a motion to dissolve, the losing party can appeal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 51.014(a)(4). But the appeal is narrow. The appellate court only looks at whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to dissolve. If nobody appealed the original injunction when it was entered, the appellate court has no power to second-guess whether that original order was proper. That limit decided a big part of this case.
Why a Foreign Win Cannot Dissolve the Injunction
Elaine’s main argument was that the Louisiana judgment—finding no breaches and approving the co-trustee appointments—was a changed circumstance that knocked out the factual basis for the Texas injunction. She framed it as claim and issue preclusion: because Louisiana had ruled in her favor on the same conduct, those findings should bar Preston from pressing the same claims in Texas.
Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars relitigating claims that were or could have been raised before. Issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) bars relitigating specific issues that were actually litigated and decided. In Texas, both are “pleas in bar”—they challenge a party’s right to recover and go to the merits of the case.
That is the problem for Elaine. The court relied on DeVilbiss v. West, 600 S.W.2d 767 (Tex. 1980), which holds that a trial court errs by deciding a res judicata defense at a temporary injunction hearing. The reasoning is simple: a temporary injunction proceeding is not a trial on the merits. Letting a party win on a plea in bar at the injunction stage would turn the hearing into an advance ruling on the whole case. Texas courts will not do that. As the court put it, citing Iranian Muslim Organization v. City of San Antonio, 615 S.W.2d 202 (Tex. 1981), a temporary injunction proceeding cannot be used to get an early ruling on the merits.
So a trustee holding a favorable out-of-state judgment cannot use it to short-circuit a Texas temporary injunction through a motion to dissolve. The right move is a full trial on the merits in the Texas court, where preclusion can be raised as a defense. Until then, the Texas injunction stays in place.
Standing Versus Being an “Interested Person”
Elaine’s second argument was that Preston had no standing to bring claims about the Marital Trust. Her point: Preston is neither a trustee nor a direct beneficiary of the Marital Trust—he is only the beneficiary of the Harrier Trust, which is in turn a remainder beneficiary of the Marital Trust.
Texas Property Code section 115.011(a) lets “any interested person” bring a trust proceeding, and section 111.004(7) defines an “interested person” as a trustee, beneficiary, or any other person having an interest in or a claim against the trust, or who is affected by its administration. Elaine said Preston did not fit that definition. But the court explained that whether someone qualifies as an “interested person” is a question of capacity—sometimes loosely called “statutory standing”—not constitutional standing. The Texas Supreme Court drew that line in Berry v. Berry, 646 S.W.3d 516 (Tex. 2022). Statutory standing does not touch the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction; it just asks whether the plaintiff is in the class of people the statute lets sue.
Constitutional standing is what actually affects jurisdiction, and it requires three things: a concrete injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and an injury the court can redress. The court found Preston pleaded all three. He alleged the Wyoming Transactions and his removal as successor trustee hurt his interest as the eventual remainder beneficiary of the Harrier Trust. Those injuries trace to Elaine’s alleged misconduct, and they can be fixed by unwinding the Wyoming Transactions and removing Elaine as trustee. So the trial court had jurisdiction, and this ground for dissolution failed too.
Where Elaine Did Win: Mootness
Elaine did not lose on everything. The court agreed the injunction had become moot as to two trusts—the Lead Trust and Grandchildren’s Trust #2—and dissolved those parts.
The Lead Trust, a charitable lead annuity trust created under Pierce’s will, was fully distributed and terminated by 2023. When a temporary injunction becomes inoperative because the parties’ status changes or time passes, the question of its validity is moot. A trust that no longer exists has no assets to protect and no trustee conduct left to restrain. The court dissolved that part of the injunction.
Grandchildren’s Trust #2, which Howard created in 1987 for Preston, also terminated by its own terms in 2023 when Preston turned fifty. On top of that, the related Harris County claims had gone to a final judgment (later reversed and remanded on the damages amount). A final judgment on the trust claims makes any challenge to the injunction covering those same claims moot. So the court dissolved that part as well.
The line the court drew is worth remembering. A trust ending or a final judgment being entered is a real change in circumstances that supports dissolving an injunction. A foreign court’s favorable ruling on the merits is not—because it raises a plea in bar that belongs at trial, not in an interlocutory fight over an injunction.
The Takeaway
Texas probate courts use temporary injunctions in trust disputes to keep trustees from moving or draining assets while the case is pending. Getting one dissolved is harder than it looks. A trustee who wins favorable rulings in another state—even a state with direct authority over the trust—cannot use those rulings to dissolve a Texas temporary injunction through a motion to dissolve. Res judicata and collateral estoppel are pleas in bar that go to the merits, and Texas courts will not decide them in an interlocutory proceeding. For a beneficiary, that means the protection of a Texas injunction reaches across state lines and survives a contrary judgment from another state. For a trustee, the only way out, short of the trust ending or the underlying claims reaching final judgment, is to try the whole case on the merits. If you are caught in a multi-jurisdictional trust fight, the practical lesson is the same on both sides: these disputes get resolved at trial, not piecemeal through interlocutory motions.
Our Dallas Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with trust disputes, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and probate litigation involving temporary injunctions. Probate is what we do. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate matters.Call us today for a FREE attorney consultation.
Disclaimer: The content of this website is for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. The information presented may not apply to your situation and should not be acted upon without consulting a qualified probate attorney. We encourage you to seek the advice of a competent attorney with any legal questions you may have.
