When a parent dies and leaves behind a blended family, a fight over the estate is close to a given. Stepparents, stepchildren, and children from a prior relationship all end up comparing what they were promised against what they actually received. When those disagreements turn into lawsuits, the money is only part of it. There is usually a belief that someone on the inside of the estate did something wrong.
But having a grievance is not the same as having a claim you can still bring. Probate claims come with deadlines, and those deadlines usually start running the moment the estate is opened — not the moment the heir finds out something looks off. And even a live claim can be lost on appeal if the person appealing does not attack the specific reason the trial court ruled against them.
That is what happened in In the Estate of Larry Campbell, No. 14-25-00806-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] June 18, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). A son from the decedent’s prior relationship sued his father’s widow, who was serving as independent executor, for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and much more. He lost on summary judgment. On appeal he argued fact issues, discovery, and problems with his lawyer. He never argued the one defense the trial court could have relied on. This case shows how that silence ends an appeal before the merits are ever reached.
Facts and Procedural History
Larry Campbell died on January 28, 2015. His will was admitted to probate on May 11, 2015, and his widow, Sabrina Campbell, was appointed independent executor. On October 7, 2015, the probate court signed an order approving an inventory and appraisal of claims. At that point the estate’s assets were on file with the court and the administration was underway.
Six years went by.
On April 22, 2021, Daren Campbell — Larry’s son from a prior relationship — filed an original petition in the trial court naming Sabrina as the defendant. The case was in the County Court at Law No. 2 and Probate Court of Brazoria County. Daren alleged that sometime around the end of March or mid-April 2015, Sabrina promised he would receive certain proceeds from his father’s estate, and that she never delivered them.
His live pleading threw everything at her: breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligence, unjust enrichment, mental anguish, forgery, and violation of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing. If proven, several of those would be a serious breach of what an executor owes the people with an interest in the estate.
Sabrina answered with a combined motion for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. The traditional part said every claim was barred by limitations, because the claims accrued back in 2015 when the will was admitted and the inventory was approved. The no-evidence part said Daren had no evidence for any of it.
Daren responded that he did not learn of his injury until September 2019, and he attached documents he said showed Sabrina had breached her fiduciary duties. The trial court held a hearing on June 10, 2024, where Daren’s counsel appeared. More than a year later, on August 14, 2025, the court held a second hearing. Daren’s counsel appeared, argued for him, and then withdrew.
At that hearing Sabrina’s counsel argued the claims accrued when the probate proceeding was started and assets began to be distributed, and that Daren had constructive notice of that as a person interested in the estate. The trial court granted summary judgment without saying which ground it relied on, and Daren took his own appeal without a lawyer. The question for the court of appeals was not really whether Daren had a good claim. It was whether he had attacked the right ruling.
How Long Do You Have to Sue an Executor in Texas?
To see why this case turned out the way it did, you first have to understand how limitations work against a probate claim and when the clock starts.
An independent executor in Texas administers the estate without ongoing court supervision, and with that authority comes real duty. The executor has to act in good faith, preserve estate property, follow the will, and make the distributions the will calls for. Daren’s suit was built on the idea that Sabrina promised him estate proceeds while she held that role and then kept them. That is the kind of allegation that can support a breach of fiduciary duty claim — if it is brought in time.
The Estates Code puts a lot of that administration on the public record. Under Texas Estates Code Section 309.051, the personal representative generally has to file a verified, full, and detailed inventory of the estate’s property with the court clerk before the 91st day after qualifying, along with the representative’s appraisement of fair market value. Section 309.052 requires a complete list of claims owed to the estate to be attached. Once the court approves that inventory and it is filed with the clerk, Section 309.051(d) makes it “for all purposes the inventory and appraisement of the estate.” That is exactly what happened here in October 2015 — the estate’s composition became a matter of court record.
Limitations is what turns that record into a deadline. A statute of limitations is an affirmative defense, which means the defendant has to raise it and prove it. Godoy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 575 S.W.3d 531, 536 (Tex. 2019). If the defendant establishes it, the defense defeats the claim whether or not the claim would have won on the merits.
Two limitations periods mattered here. Negligence and personal injury claims carry a two-year deadline under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.003. Fraud and breach of fiduciary duty carry a four-year deadline under Section 16.004, which by its terms covers specific performance of a contract to convey real property, damages on the penal clause of a bond to convey real property, debt, fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. So the longest window Daren had on his best claims was four years.
The clock starts when the claim “accrues” — generally when the wrongful act happens or the plaintiff suffers a legal injury. Texas recognizes a narrow exception called the discovery rule, which delays accrual until the plaintiff discovers, or through reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury and its cause. Texas courts apply it sparingly, and it takes more than saying you did not know. That is the argument Daren made in the trial court when he said he did not learn of his injury until September 2019. Whether it would have worked is a question nobody ever answered, for reasons that had nothing to do with the discovery rule.
What the Court Decided
The court started by pinning down what it was actually reviewing. Sabrina had filed a combined traditional and no-evidence motion, but the trial court signed a handwritten order titled “Order on Motion for Traditional Summary Judgment” stating that “[a]s to Defendant’s motion for traditional summary judgment that is file marked July 21, 2025, it is granted in all things and Daren Campbell takes nothing.” So the court treated Daren’s issues as a challenge to the traditional summary judgment only.
Summary judgment review is de novo. Tarr v. Timberwood Park Owners Ass’n, 556 S.W.3d 274, 278 (Tex. 2018). A movant has to prove conclusively that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); City of Houston v. Sauls, 690 S.W.3d 60, 70 (Tex. 2024). A defendant moving on an affirmative defense has to establish every element of that defense as a matter of law, Chau v. Riddle, 254 S.W.3d 453, 455 (Tex. 2008), and once it does, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to come forward with competent controverting evidence raising a fact issue on one element. Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507, 511 (Tex. 2014).
Then comes the rule that decided the case. If summary judgment may have been granted, properly or improperly, on a ground that is not challenged on appeal, the judgment must be affirmed. Jinsun, LLC v. Mireskandari, 694 S.W.3d 773, 777 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2024, no pet.). The appellate court does not go looking for reasons to reverse. If one ground that could have supported the ruling goes unattacked, the judgment stands on that ground alone.
Daren’s opening brief raised five issues: fact issues about estate asset handling and reporting, summary judgment before discovery was complete, procedural prejudice from counsel’s failure to appear, the fact-intensive nature of fiduciary and estate asset disputes, and cumulative deficiencies requiring remand in the interest of justice. Read that list again and notice what is missing. He never addressed limitations — the affirmative defense Sabrina actually moved on. As the court put it, because Daren failed to adequately challenge that ground, it had to uphold the judgment, citing Collins v. D.R. Horton-Texas Ltd., 574 S.W.3d 39, 44 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2018, pet. denied).
Daren saw the problem once Sabrina’s brief pointed it out, and he filed a reply brief arguing the discovery rule would defeat the limitations defense. That was the right argument. It was just too late. The court said it was not required to consider issues raised for the first time in a reply brief and declined to do so, citing Jinsun again, 694 S.W.3d at 778. A reply brief exists to answer the appellee’s brief, not to raise the issue that should have been in the opening brief.
So the affirmance rests on waiver, not on a ruling that Daren’s claims were in fact time-barred. It is worth being precise about that, because the constructive notice theory Sabrina’s counsel argued — that opening the probate and approving the inventory put an interested person on notice and started the clock in 2015 — is a live argument, but it is not something this court passed on. The court never had to decide when Daren’s claims accrued, whether the discovery rule applied, or whether the inventory order gave him notice. It affirmed because there was an independent ground for the judgment that he did not attack, and under Jinsun that is the end of the analysis. Anyone reading this case for a holding on probate accrual will not find one.
The Takeaway
Campbell is not really a case about fraud or executor misconduct. It is a case about timing and about attacking the right thing on appeal. Daren waited six years after his father’s estate was opened to sue, and even his one good answer to the limitations defense — the discovery rule — showed up in a reply brief instead of the opening brief, where it would have counted.
For a child from a prior relationship who suspects the surviving spouse is not dealing straight with the estate, the practical lesson is that the clock starts at the front end of the probate, not when you get suspicious. Admitting the will and approving the inventory are court events on the public record, and the four-year window on a fraud or breach of fiduciary duty claim can close while you are still deciding whether to do something about it. If you think something is wrong with an administration, get the file pulled and get an opinion early — waiting to be sure is how good claims die.
For executors, limitations remains one of the most efficient defenses there is. It can dispose of a factually messy dispute without discovery or trial. And for anyone appealing a summary judgment where the order does not spell out its reasoning, the opening brief has to knock out every ground the motion raised. Leave one standing and the appeal is over, no matter how strong the rest of it looks.
Our Fort Worth Probate Attorneys provide a full range of probate services to our clients, including helping with claims against executors and limitations deadlines in estate disputes. Probate is what we do. Affordable rates, fixed fees, and payment plans are available. We provide step-by-step instructions, guidance, checklists, and more for completing the probate process.We have years of combined experience we can use to support and guide you with probate and estate 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.
