Estate planning attorneys routinely include choice-of-law provisions in trust documents. They often defaulti to the state where the trust is created or where the attorney practices.
These provisions might seem like boilerplate language, but they can profoundly impact beneficiaries’ rights decades later. The governing law determines everything from modification procedures to information rights, and these differences between states can mean the difference between obtaining essential trust information and being left in the dark.
The recent Litoff v. Case, 03-24-00400-CV (Tex. App.–Austin May 29, 2025), provides an example of how choice-of-law provisions can determine the outcome of beneficiary disputes.
Facts & Procedural History
In 1967, Louis and Rose created an irrevocable trust in Connecticut. It established separate trusts for each of their four children.
Robert was the primary beneficiary of one trust, with the agreement containing specific language stating that trustees would not be required to “furnish any bond or other security, to render any annual or other periodic accountings, or to obtain the approval of any court” for property transactions.
The trust agreement designated it as a “Connecticut trust” to be “administered in accordance with the laws of that State,” with all questions regarding “the validity and effect of the provisions” to be determined under Connecticut law. This choice-of-law provision would prove decisive decades later.
By 2016, the trust’s administration had effectively moved to Texas. David began serving as Robert’s trustee, with both men living in central Texas along with all trust assets. Despite their friendship and regular communication, tensions arose when Robert began requesting trust information in 2019.
Robert made multiple written requests seeking an accounting of the trust, information about David’s compensation, and details about loan terms on trust property. According to Robert’s allegations, David consistently refused to provide this information,. He pointed to the trust language that exempted him from accounting obligations.
Robert’s concerns extended beyond routine information requests. He alleged that David had engaged in apparent breaches of fiduciary duty, including entering transactions involving trust property in his individual capacity and failing to pay taxes, resulting in liens on trust property. These allegations suggested potential self-dealing that Robert could not investigate without access to trust records.
In March 2024, Robert filed suit in Travis County Probate Court, seeking both judicial modification of the trust’s restrictive provisions and a statutory accounting. His probate litigation strategy involved two primary claims: reforming the trust to require accountings and compelling disclosure under applicable statutory protections.
David responded with a motion to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing that Robert’s claims had no basis in law or fact. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed Robert’s claims with prejudice. Robert appealed, setting up a confrontation over which state’s law would govern his rights as a beneficiary.
Understanding Texas Versus Connecticut Beneficiary Rights
The differences between Texas and Connecticut trust law regarding beneficiary information rights are substantial and favor beneficiaries seeking accountability.
Texas Property Code Section 113.151 provides beneficiaries with accounting rights, but these rights can be significantly limited by trust terms. Texas law generally respects settlor intent as expressed in trust documents, including provisions that restrict trustee obligations.
Under Texas law, trust terms that eliminate periodic accounting requirements are often enforceable, particularly in trusts created decades ago when such provisions were more common. Texas courts typically require clear statutory language to override explicit trust terms, and the state’s approach tends to emphasize settlor intent over beneficiary protection when the two conflict.
Connecticut’s approach reflects is different regaring beneficiary protection needs. Connecticut General Statutes Section 45a-499kkk establishes statutory information rights that function as mandatory minimums, regardless of restrictive trust language. The statute requires trustees to keep qualified beneficiaries “reasonably informed about the administration of the trust and of the material facts necessary for the beneficiaries to protect their interests.”
Connecticut law also provides beneficiaries with the statutory right to petition courts for accountings under Section 45a-499kkk(d). This right exists independently of trust terms and cannot be completely waived by restrictive trust language. The statute establishes specific criteria for when courts may grant accounting petitions, but it does not allow trust provisions to eliminate these rights entirely.
The Connecticut framework recognizes that beneficiaries need access to information to fulfill their role in the trust relationship effectively. Even if settlors prefer minimal trustee reporting, Connecticut law ensures that beneficiaries retain meaningful protection against trustee misconduct or mismanagement.
How Choice-of-Law Provisions Control Trust Administration
Choice-of-law provisions in trust agreements serve as more than mere technicalities; they determine which state’s entire legal framework governs trust interpretation and administration. These provisions control everything from beneficiary rights to trustee powers, and their effects can extend far beyond what settlors anticipated when the trust was created.
Texas courts generally enforce choice-of-law provisions in trust agreements when they relate to issues the parties could have resolved through explicit contractual terms. The enforceability analysis involves determining whether the chosen state has a reasonable relationship to the trust and whether applying that state’s law would contravene strong public policy of the forum state.
In trust contexts, choice-of-law provisions typically encompass interpretation of trust terms, determination of beneficiary rights, trustee powers and duties, and modification procedures. When a trust designates Connecticut law as controlling, Texas courts must apply Connecticut’s entire trust law framework, including statutory protections that might be more favorable to beneficiaries than Texas law.
The practical effect of choice-of-law provisions becomes apparent when comparing different states’ approaches to common trust issues. A trust provision that might be enforceable under one state’s law could be overridden by another state’s statutory framework. Beneficiaries and trustees operating under trusts with choice-of-law provisions must understand the governing state’s law, not the law of their current residence.
Choice-of-law provisions can also affect modification procedures, with some states providing more flexible approaches to changing trust terms when circumstances warrant. The governing law determines not only what modifications are possible but also what procedures must be followed and what standards courts will apply.
What Makes Connecticut’s Beneficiary Protection Laws Different?
Connecticut’s approach to beneficiary protection reflects a legislative recognition that traditional trust law’s emphasis on settlor intent must be balanced against beneficiaries’ legitimate need for information and accountability. Section 45a-499kkk represents a comprehensive framework that provides beneficiaries with meaningful protection while still respecting settlor preferences where appropriate.
The Connecticut statute establishes multiple layers of beneficiary protection. It requires trustees to keep beneficiaries reasonably informed about trust administration and to respond promptly to information requests reasonably related to trust administration. These requirements apply as statutory obligations that cannot be completely eliminated by trust language.
Connecticut law also provides beneficiaries with the right to petition courts for accountings under specific circumstances. The statute requires that beneficiaries have sufficient interests in the trust, show cause that an accounting is necessary, and demonstrate that the petition is not for harassment purposes. However, it does not allow trust terms to completely prevent beneficiaries from seeking judicial intervention when necessary.
The temporal application of Connecticut’s beneficiary protection laws also differs from other states’ approaches. While some provisions of Section 45a-499kkk contain limitations for trusts created before specific dates, the core information and accounting rights apply more broadly. This ensures that beneficiaries of older trusts retain meaningful protection even when their trusts contain language that seemed to eliminate such rights.
Connecticut’s framework also addresses the practical realities of trust administration in an era when beneficiaries may be geographically dispersed and trustees may be managing complex assets. The law recognizes that effective trust administration requires informed beneficiaries who can monitor trustee performance and protect their interests when necessary.
How the Court Applied Connecticut Law to Override Trust Terms
The Texas Court of Appeals began its analysis by determining which state’s law should govern Robert’s claims. Despite arguments that Texas law should apply given the location of all parties and assets, the court found that the trust’s choice-of-law provision required application of Connecticut law. The court emphasized that such provisions are generally enforceable when they address issues the parties could have resolved through explicit contractual terms.
Once the court established that Connecticut law controlled, the analysis shifted dramatically in Robert’s favor. Under Connecticut General Statutes Section 45a-499kkk, Robert’s claims for both court-ordered accountings and disclosure of material facts had clear statutory foundations that could not be eliminated by the trust’s restrictive language.
The court found that Section 45a-499kkk(d) permits beneficiaries to petition for accountings regardless of trust terms attempting to eliminate trustee accounting obligations. Robert had pleaded sufficient facts to satisfy the statute’s requirements: he had a sufficient interest in the trust, had shown cause that an accounting was necessary through his allegations of trustee misconduct, and was not seeking the accounting for harassment purposes.
Similarly, the court found that Section 45a-499kkk(a) provided a legal basis for Robert’s alternative claim for disclosure of material facts necessary to protect his interests. Robert’s allegations that David had ignored multiple information requests and had potentially engaged in self-dealing established that David had failed to meet his statutory obligations under Connecticut law.
David’s argument that the trust’s creation date exempted it from Connecticut’s beneficiary protection statutes failed because the limitations clause applied only to specific subsections that Robert was not relying upon. The court found that the core information and accounting rights applied to Robert’s 1967 trust, giving him protection that the trust’s original language seemed to eliminate.
The court’s analysis demonstrates how choice-of-law provisions can completely alter the outcome of beneficiary disputes, providing rights under one state’s law that might not exist under another state’s framework.
Comparing What Would Have Happened Under Texas Law
Had Texas law governed Robert’s claims, the outcome likely would have been far different and less favorable to his position as a beneficiary seeking accountability.
Texas Property Code Section 113.151 provides beneficiaries with accounting rights, but Texas courts generally give greater deference to trust terms that limit these rights.
Under Texas law, the trust’s explicit language stating that trustees are not required “to render any annual or other periodic accountings” would likely have been enforceable. Texas courts typically require clear and compelling reasons to override explicit trust terms, particularly when those terms reflect what appears to be deliberate settlor intent to limit trustee obligations.
Texas law tends to emphasize the principle that settlers should be able to structure their trusts according to their preferences, including preferences for reduced administrative burdens and costs associated with regular accountings. Courts applying Texas law might have found that the 1967 trust’s language reflected the settlors’ intent to create a streamlined trust administration without formal accounting requirements.
The practical effect would have been that Robert’s accounting claims might have been dismissed as inconsistent with the trust’s explicit terms. While Texas law provides some beneficiary protections, these protections are generally subject to trust terms and can be waived or limited by explicit language.
The Takeaway
This case shows that choice-of-law provisions in trust agreements are far more than technical details—they can determine whether beneficiaries have meaningful rights to information and accountability from their trustees. The case shows how Connecticut’s statutory framework for beneficiary protection overrode restrictive trust language that might have been enforceable under Texas law, giving Robert access to accounting rights he likely would not have obtained otherwise. For estate planning, this decision underscores the importance of carefully considering which state’s law will govern trust administration and how different states’ approaches to beneficiary protection might affect their clients’ long-term interests.
Do you need help with trust or estate planning in Houston or the surrounding area? We are Houston estate planning attorneys. We help clients navigate even the most complex estates. Call today for a free confidential consultation, 281-219-9090.
Our Houston Estate Planning Attorneys provide a full range of services to our clients, including helping with estate plans, trusts, and inheritance rights. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the guardianship process. We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with guardianship and probate 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.
