The Texas Court of Appeals recently reversed a lower court's decision to transfer the venue of a fraud case involving a trust. The case, Kenton E. McDonald v. Santos Vargas and Davis & Santos, PLLC, affects the parties involved in the management of a trust and raises important questions about where legal disputes should be heard.
Kenton E. McDonald, the appellant, is the trustee of the JoAnn Turrentine Revocable Living Trust. He filed a lawsuit against Santos Vargas and the law firm Davis & Santos, PLLC, collectively referred to as D&S. The lawsuit stems from actions taken by D&S while they represented Frost Bank, the predecessor trustee of the trust. The case was filed under docket number 04-25-00446-CV on June 17, 2026.
The dispute began when Frost Bank was appointed trustee in 2018. After the beneficiaries of the trust requested that Frost Bank file a lawsuit against its predecessor, Raymond James Trust Company, for failing to provide an accounting and breaching its fiduciary duty, Frost Bank declined to take action. Consequently, the beneficiaries filed their own lawsuit against Raymond James. In September 2020, D&S notified that Frost Bank intended to resign as trustee. McDonald, with the beneficiaries' agreement, sought to serve as the new trustee. However, Frost Bank refused to accept him without a modification to the trust.
In December 2020, Frost Bank petitioned the county court in Nueces County to modify the trust, allowing McDonald to serve as trustee and granting Frost a discharge from liability for its actions. The court eventually approved McDonald as the new trustee. Following this, McDonald filed his lawsuit against D&S in Nueces County, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and conversion.
After McDonald filed his lawsuit, D&S moved to transfer the case from Nueces County to Bexar County, arguing that all legal services were performed in Bexar County. The trial court granted the motion to transfer venue. Subsequently, D&S filed motions to dismiss McDonald's claims based on attorney immunity and the Texas Citizens Participation Act. The Bexar County district court granted these motions and awarded D&S $28,478.55 in attorney’s fees.
On appeal, the Texas Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in granting the motion to transfer venue. The court stated, "Nueces County clearly has a substantial connection to the lawsuit, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to McDonald’s claims occurred there." The ruling emphasized that the original venue chosen by McDonald was proper, and the trial court's decision to transfer the case to Bexar County was a reversible error.
The court's ruling means that McDonald’s lawsuit will return to Nueces County for further proceedings. This decision is significant as it underscores the importance of maintaining the plaintiff's right to choose the venue in which to file a lawsuit, particularly when a substantial part of the events occurred in that location.
Moving forward, this ruling may impact how similar cases are handled in Texas, particularly those involving trusts and fiduciary duties. It reinforces the principle that a plaintiff's choice of venue should not be easily overturned, especially when there is evidence supporting the original venue.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether D&S plans to appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending. However, the reversal of the venue transfer could set a precedent for future cases involving similar legal disputes.