In Marshall v. Marshall, there were multiple trusts created by J. Howard Marshall and E. Pierce Marshall involving Koch Industries shares. No. 14-25-00322-CV, 2026 Tex. App. LEXIS 1970 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 3, 2026, pet. filed). Preston Marshall is a beneficiary of several trusts, including the Harrier Trust and Grandchildren’s Trust #2, and was the successor trustee of the Marital Trust. Elaine Marshall served as trustee for the Marital Trust, Harrier Trust, Falcon Trust, and Grandchildren’s Trust #2, and was also the income beneficiary of the Marital Trust. In 2014, Elaine, as trustee, merged the Marital Trust into a new Wyoming trust, changing the governing law to Wyoming and adding a no-contest provision. In 2016, Elaine appointed five co-trustees to the Harrier and Falcon Trusts, with a compensation formula that was later challenged. Preston alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by Elaine, including improper appointments, failure to provide accountings, and actions detrimental to trust assets. In 2017, Preston obtained a temporary injunction in Harris County Probate Court restraining Elaine from various trust-related actions, including transferring assets, appointing co-trustees, and making payments to co-trustees. Litigation occurred in both Texas and Louisiana courts regarding the administration of the trusts, the validity of co-trustee appointments, and compensation. A Louisiana court issued 2024-2025 judgments, finding no breaches by Elaine regarding Harrier and Falcon Trusts. The Louisiana court expressly stated it was not ordering any action that would violate the Texas temporary injunction. Elaine moved to dissolve the Texas temporary injunction, arguing that the Louisiana judgments constituted changed circumstances and that portions of the injunction were moot due to the termination of certain trusts. The trial court denied the motion to dissolve, and Elaine appealed.
The court of appeals stated:
The trial court has the authority to dissolve a temporary injunction upon a showing of fundamental error or changed circumstances. Changed circumstances are conditions that alter the status quo existing after the temporary injunction was granted that make the injunction unnecessary or improper. The movant bears the burden to present new evidence establishing changed circumstances. If the movant fails to present new evidence showing fundamental error or changed circumstances, then the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to dissolve.
Id.
The appellate court held that claim and issue preclusion arguments (res judicata) were pleas in bar that could not be considered in temporary injunction proceedings, as they go to the merits of the case:
We therefore apply Texas law in reviewing whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. To be sure, if we were to address the merits of appellants’ res judicata arguments, we would be required to apply Louisiana Law, but we are precluded from considering the merits of the case in this interlocutory appeal from the denial of a motion to dissolve the temporary injunction. By challenging a party’s right to recover, a plea in bar reaches the merits of a case. A temporary injunction proceeding may not be used to obtain an advance ruling on the merits.
Id. The court found that Preston established constitutional standing to challenge actions regarding the Marital Trust by alleging concrete injuries traceable to Elaine’s conduct and redressable by the requested relief.
The Lead Trust and Grandchildren’s Trust #2 both terminated in 2023, rendering the injunction provisions relating to them moot. The appellate court modified the temporary injunction to dissolve the portions relating to the Lead Trust and Grandchildren’s Trust #2 but affirmed the denial of the motion to dissolve as to the Marital Trust, Harrier Trust, and Falcon Trust. The purpose of the temporary injunction was to preserve the status quo pending trial on the merits, and the trial court’s discretion in denying the motion to dissolve was upheld except as to the moot portions.