Can a family member who is not a beneficiary of a trust force the trustee to produce a copy of the trust?

What if there is a genuine dispute and litigation going between the family members? Can the family member who is not named in the trust then obtain a copy of the trust?

From the trustee’s perspective, can the trustee refuse to comply with a discovery request that asks for a copy of the trust? If the trustee does not produce the copy, can the trustee be subject to court-imposed sanctions?

The recent Estate of Arnold, No. 13-24-00181-CV (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg Jan. 15, 2026) case gets into these questions. It provides an opportunity to consider whether trustees can invoke a duty of confidentiality to resist discovery demands from individuals who are not trust beneficiaries.

Facts & Procedural History

Arnold died in 2021. He had an estate plan that included a will, a codicil, and a trust.

Arnold’s nephew filed an application to determine heirship and an application for letters of independent administration as if there was no will.

The trustee filed an application for probate of the will and codicil and issuance of letters testamentary in a separate cause. The two causes were consolidated. The nephew then filed a contest to the will.

During discovery, the nephew issued a subpoena to the trustee to produce a copy of the trust and all memoranda of distribution of personal property. The trustee objected, arguing the discovery request was outside the scope of permissible discovery because the trust was not relevant to the suit as to the will and whether the decedent died with or without a will.

The nephew moved to compel compliance. The probate court granted the motion. The trustee then moved to reconsider and provided a copy of the trust for in-camera review. She argued that states have long recognized and protected what she termed “Trust Privacy.” Because the nephew was not a beneficiary under the trust, she contended she was under no obligation to produce it for his review.

The trial court denied the trustee’s motion and signed an order compelling production on November 10, 2021. The trustee challenged this order by filing petitions for writ of mandamus in both the Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. Both courts denied the writs.

The nephew then filed multiple motions for contempt and sanctions. On September 23, 2022, he filed his third amended motion requesting that the trustee be held in contempt and that the court impose monetary sanctions on a daily basis. He separately requested attorney’s fees. The trial court agreed to award attorney’s fees, stating it did not think there was a good faith basis for resisting discovery. The appeal followed from this.

The Trustee’s Duty of Confidentiality

The central issue in the appeal was whether Texas law recognizes a trustee’s duty to maintain confidentiality of trust information when a non-beneficiary seeks that information in discovery. The trustee relied on several sources and arguments.

First, she cited the Restatement (Third) of Trusts Section 78, comment i, which states that incident to the duty of loyalty is the trustee’s duty to preserve the confidentiality and privacy of trust information from disclosure to third persons, except as required by law or as necessary to proper administration.

Second, the trustee pointed to case law that said that a trustee owes fiduciary duties to the trust, including the duty of loyalty, which obligates the trustee to preserve the confidentiality of trust information.

Third, the trustee relied on general principles of trustee fiduciary duty under Texas law. Multiple Texas courts have recognized that trustees owe unwavering duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and fidelity to trust beneficiaries.

The appellate court found these sources persuasive. The court acknowledged that while the case law was not a binding authority and was decided after the sanctions order, it substantiates the existence of the fiduciary duty the trustee was trying to fulfill. The court noted the importance of trustees having access to courts to resolve such disputes.

To Whom Does a Trustee Owe Duties?

This begs the further question as to whom the trustee owes duties.

A trustee generally owes duties only to the trust’s beneficiaries. The Texas Property Code notes this in several places. Section 117.003 codifies the duty of loyalty. Section 117.007 states that a trustee shall invest and manage trust assets solely in the interest of beneficiaries.

Texas courts have consistently recognized this limitation. Court of Appeals decisions have reinforced that trustees owe beneficiaries unwavering duties of good faith, fair dealing, loyalty, and fidelity.

This principle became dispositive. The trial court’s in-camera review determined that the nephew was removed as a beneficiary when the trust was amended in 2017. He was never a beneficiary during the pendency of this case. Therefore, the trustee was not required to disclose trust information to him under the general rules governing trustee duties.

The appellate court emphasized this in analyzing whether sanctions were appropriate. The court found that there was at least some legal authority to support the trustee’s resistance. The trustee was not just coming up with an unsupported theory, as the trial court concluded.

The Significance of Denied Mandamus Relief

The trial court based its contempt and sanctions findings in part on the fact that both courts denied the trustee’s mandamus petitions. The trial court interpreted these denials as confirmation that the trustee’s arguments lacked merit.

The appellate court disagreed. The court noted that failure to grant mandamus is not an adjudication of, nor even a comment on, the merits of a case. The denials made no comment on the merits of the trustee’s argument about trust privacy.

This distinction matters for sanctions analysis. A court cannot properly conclude that an appeal was frivolous simply because the appellate court denied relief. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy with strict procedural requirements. Denial may reflect that those requirements were not met rather than that the underlying legal argument lacked merit.

The Appellate Court’s Reversal on Sanctions

The appellate court held that the trial court abused its discretion when it awarded attorney’s fees against the trustee. The appellate court’s reasoning rested on several conclusions.

First, the court noted that there was at least some legal authority to support the trustee’s resistance. This authority included Texas Property Code provisions on trustee duties, the Restatement (Third) of Trusts, the concurring opinion in a prior court case, and multiple Court of Appeals decisions recognizing trustee fiduciary duties.

Second, trustees generally owe duties only to trust beneficiaries. The nephew was not a beneficiary during the case. Therefore, the trustee was not required to disclose trust information to him under general principles of trust law.

Third, the trial court improperly relied on the mandamus denials. Those denials did not comment on the merits and could not serve as a basis for concluding the appeals lacked merit.

The court concluded that the trustee was not just coming up with an unsupported theory. The Court of Appeals reversed the sanctions order and rendered judgment that the nephew take nothing by way of attorney’s fees.

The Takeaway

For individuals administering estates or serving as trustees, this case confirms that good faith efforts to protect trust confidentiality based on existing legal principles will not support sanctions, even when courts order disclosure. The case underscores the importance of understanding both trustee fiduciary duties and the scope of discovery.

This decision shows that a trustee’s duty of loyalty to current beneficiaries includes protecting confidential trust information. Discovery rules allow parties in litigation to obtain relevant information. While discovery orders may ultimately compel disclosure, a trustee who resists such disclosure to protect trust confidentiality is not necessarily acting in bad faith. When a trustee can point to legal authority supporting resistance to discovery, including the principle that trustees owe duties to beneficiaries rather than to former beneficiaries or strangers to the trust, sanctions are not appropriate merely because the position does not prevail.

probate attorneys.  We help clients navigate the probate process.   Call today for a free confidential consultation, 800-521-0230.

Our West Texas Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with probate disputes involving the appointment of executors. 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 that 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.