John III and Barbara Howell created a family trust (the "Governing Instrument") that, after their deaths, was divided into sixteen separate second-generation trusts for their descendants, though the original Governing Instrument continued to govern administration of all sixteen. William R. Howell Sr. ("Bill") is a relative who sought an accounting related to one of these trusts, administered by Colton V. Power, after Power and a co-trustee/relative (Hanson) allegedly bought stock in violation of the Governing Instrument's terms and then denied Bill's accounting requests.
Bill sought a court order compelling Power to provide an accounting; the 48th District Court of Tarrant County (Honorable Christopher Taylor) ordered Power to produce the accounting by December 22, 2025. Power sought mandamus relief in the Fort Worth Court of Appeals, which denied the petition by memorandum order. Power then sought mandamus in the Supreme Court, along with a motion to stay the trial court's accounting deadline pending the petition. The Supreme Court set the case for oral argument on December 3, 2026.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by ordering Power to provide a trust accounting to Bill, where (per the petition): (1) Bill is not a beneficiary of the specific trust for which the accounting was ordered; (2) Bill is not an "interested person" under the Texas Property Code because he lacks a sufficient interest in, or claim against, that trust; and (3) being forced to produce the accounting causes irreparable harm with no adequate remedy on appeal, since the harm (disclosure) is complete once it happens?
Relator (Colton V. Power): Only a trust's actual beneficiaries, or "interested persons" with a genuine stake in that specific trust's administration, are entitled to an accounting under the Texas Property Code and this Court's precedent in Berry v. Berry. Bill has no beneficial interest in the particular trust at issue and no claim that its administration affects him, so ordering the accounting was an abuse of discretion. Because an improperly compelled accounting causes the disclosure harm the moment it's produced, there is no adequate remedy on appeal, making mandamus the only way to prevent irreparable harm.
Real Party in Interest (William R. Howell Sr.): Bill qualifies as a beneficiary, or at minimum an "interested person," under the Texas Property Code and this Court's Berry v. Berry framework, entitling him to the accounting the trial court ordered. Power's remaining defenses under the Governing Instrument's text don't hold up, and in any event Power has an adequate remedy on appeal, meaning mandamus relief is unwarranted regardless of the merits.
Not separately argued as a standalone "reasons to grant" section; the petition's cert-worthiness argument is folded into its irreparable-harm/no-adequate-remedy showing (the standard mandamus prerequisites), rather than an assertion of a court-of-appeals split or a broader statewide-importance argument.
trusts-and-estates, civil-procedure
Original proceeding for writ of mandamus; Relator / Real Party in Interest. Set for oral argument December 3, 2026. Not yet decided (conditional grant or denial of mandamus relief is the only possible disposition).
None
Every document below opens on the official Texas courts site (search.txcourts.gov) — nothing is hosted here.