A Texas court has ruled against Coby Todd Bausch in a legal dispute involving a family trust. The Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District, denied Bausch's petition for a writ of mandamus, which sought to overturn a trial court's order regarding the powers of a successor trustee. This decision affects Bausch and other beneficiaries of the Garrison Family Trust, which has been in limbo since the original trustees passed away.
The case, titled In Re Coby Todd Bausch v. the State of Texas, was filed on June 26, 2026, under docket number 08-25-00326-CV. The ruling is significant because it clarifies the legal standards for mandamus relief in Texas, particularly in trust disputes where beneficiaries may feel their rights are being compromised.
The parties involved in this case include Coby Todd Bausch, the relator, and Lacy Paige Brooke, who is a beneficiary of the Garrison Family Trust. The trust was established in 1984 by W.L. Garrison and was set to terminate once the youngest beneficiary turned 35 years old. However, the trust did not specify how the assets should be divided among the beneficiaries.
After the deaths of the original co-trustees, the trust's assets remained undistributed. In January 2024, Brooke and Stephen Lindemood filed a petition to appoint a third-party successor trustee to manage the trust's winding up process. The trial court appointed Albert C. Elliott as the successor trustee, granting him significant powers to manage the trust's assets. Following tensions among the parties, a motion was filed to clarify the successor trustee's powers, which the trial court granted without a hearing on March 12, 2025.
Bausch then sought to challenge this order by filing a motion to set it aside, arguing that he was denied due process because he did not receive notice of the motion or a chance to be heard before the court made its decision. The trial court held a hearing on September 23, 2025, but ultimately denied Bausch's motion for reconsideration on October 29, 2025. This led to Bausch's petition for a writ of mandamus.
The court ruled on the mandamus petition, stating that Bausch did not demonstrate that the trial court had committed a clear abuse of discretion or that he lacked an adequate remedy through an ordinary appeal. The court explained, “We cannot conclude that Bausch was denied due process,” noting that a hearing was held after the initial order was made. The court further stated that Bausch failed to meet the burden of proving that no adequate appellate remedy existed.
The ruling emphasizes that mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy, only granted when specific conditions are met. The court pointed out that parties typically have the option to appeal decisions regarding the powers of a trustee through standard legal channels. The court also referenced previous cases to support its decision, reinforcing the idea that disputes over trust management can generally be resolved through appeals rather than mandamus.
This ruling has implications for the beneficiaries of the Garrison Family Trust, as it allows the appointed trustee to proceed with managing the trust's assets. The decision also serves as a reminder of the importance of due process in legal proceedings, particularly in cases involving trusts and estates.
Moving forward, Bausch and other beneficiaries may still pursue traditional appeals regarding the trustee's actions and the management of the trust. However, the court's decision indicates that extraordinary mandamus relief is not warranted in this case. The ruling may set a precedent for similar cases in Texas, clarifying the standards for mandamus petitions in trust disputes.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Bausch plans to appeal the ruling further or if there are any related cases pending.