Court Finds Trial Court Erred in Omitting Post-Judgment Interest from Breach of Fiduciary Duty Judgment

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

In the case of Kuers v. Shore, the defendant was the trustee of a trust from 2016 to 2017 before being removed. The successor trustee sued for breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and other claims, and was awarded $4,725 in economic damages, but the final judgment did not include pre-judgment or post-judgment interest. The successor trustee appealed the omission of interest.

Why it matters

This case highlights the importance of properly accounting for interest in judgments, as post-judgment interest is mandatory in Texas while pre-judgment interest is at the court's discretion. The ruling provides guidance on when interest should be included in breach of fiduciary duty cases.

The details

The appellate court found that no statute authorizes pre-judgment interest for breach of fiduciary duty claims, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in omitting it. However, the court ruled that post-judgment interest is mandatory under Texas law, and reversed the trial court's judgment to the extent it excluded post-judgment interest, remanding for calculation of the appropriate amount.

• The defendant was the trustee of the trust from 2016 to 2017.
• The successor trustee sued in 2024.
• The trial court issued its judgment in 2025.
• The appellate court issued its ruling on August 14, 2025.