In Bogle v. Bass, a trial court granted a motion for receivership in a trust dispute under “under the rules and principles of equity” under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 64.001(a)(6). No. 03-23-00491-CV, 2024 Tex. App. LEXIS 5033 (Tex. App.—Austin July 18, 2024, no pet. history). The case concerned a dispute as to who were the appropriate successor trustees. That order was not appealed. Later the court entered summary judgment for one side and ended the receivership. Even later the court entered an order reinstituting the receivership while the judgment was on appeal.

The court of appeals affirmed the order reinstituting the receivership order. The court stated: “Receivership has been termed a ‘harsh’ remedy, and normally a court will not appoint a receiver if another adequate remedy at law or equity exists. But when a receiver is appointed pursuant to Section 64.001(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the party seeking appointment of a receiver need not show that no other adequate remedy exists.” Id. In this case, no party opposed or timely filed an interlocutory appeal from the probate court’s initial order appointing the receiver, and the probate court ordered that the receiver “shall continue as receiver under the terms of the Court’s Order Appointing Receiver dated April 25, 2023 pending final resolution of the appeal.” Id. The initial order included detailed findings concerning the necessity of the receivership.

The court noted that enforcement of the final judgment has been suspended pending appeal. The court held that because “the parties’ dispute concerns who are the valid successor co-trustees, the probate court reasonably could have found that it was necessary to maintain the receiver on appeal based on the continuing nature of its findings in the initial order appointing a receiver.” Id. The court noted:

During an appeal of the underlying case, “the trial court has jurisdiction to appoint, control, modify, or otherwise deal with a receivership related to the main case” and the “power to modify an order discharging a receiver and to reinstate or authorize the receiver to act if new circumstances arise after the order discharging the receiver and while the main case in on appeal.” And “even after issuing an order discharging a receiver, a trial court has power to continue the receivership if circumstances require.”

Because Bass and Smith appealed and superseded the final judgment that declared Mike and Katie the successor co-trustees, Mike argued to the probate court that the “unintended effect” of the court’s order allowing suspension of the enforcement of the judgment was to prevent Mike and Katie from acting as co-trustees and to leave the trust “without anyone to act on its behalf.” They further asserted that the trust is a “multi-million-dollar Trust,” that “[h]undreds of thousands of dollars in income from the corporation need to be deposited into the Trust and distributed for Nancy’s benefit,” and that “[s]omeone needs to man the ship during the pendency of the appeal.” Bass and Smith also presented evidence about the need for ongoing management of the trust assets during the appeal, such as the payment of property taxes, depositing checks, and paying other past-due amounts concerning trust property.

On this record, we conclude that there was some evidence of a substantive and probative character to support the trial court’s decision to withdraw its order terminating the receivership and to order the receiver to serve until final resolution of the appeal. Thus, we conclude that the probate court did not abuse its discretion when it withdrew its order terminating the receivership and ordered the receiver to serve until final resolution of the appeal.

Id.