Opinion issued August 14, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00098-CV ——————————— MARY JEANNINE SHORE KUERS, INDIVIDUALLY & SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR THE SHORE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Appellant V. WILLIAM RICHARD SHORE, JR., Appellee
On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 91848-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mary Jeanine Shore Kuers, individually and as successor trustee
for the Shore Irrevocable Trust, filed suit against Appellee William Richard Shore,
Jr., then the trustee of the Shore Irrevocable Trust. Kuers alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief. During the course of the litigation, the trial court awarded Kuers $8,224.20 in attorneys’ fees
plus costs for successfully prosecuting a motion to compel against Shore. Nearly a
year later, the trial court issued a final judgment awarding Kuers $4,725.00 in
economic damages on her breach of fiduciary duty claim. The final judgment did
not award prejudgment or post-judgment interest, even though Kuers pleaded for
both.1
In two issues, Kuers argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
award prejudgment and post-judgment interest in the final judgment. We reverse
and remand to the trial court for a calculation of post-judgment interest. We affirm
the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.2
Background
William Richard Shore, Jr. was named trustee of the Shore Irrevocable
Trust, a trust established by his mother Betty Lee Shore in June 2016. He was
removed as trustee in 2017. That same year, Mary Jeanine Shore Kuers, the
successor trustee of the Shore Irrevocable Trust, sued Shore asserting claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief. As part
of her prayer for relief, Kuers requested the recovery of “prejudgment and post-
judgment interest as allowed by law.”
1 The petition in intervention is not in the record. 2 Neither party appeals the merits of the judgment.
2 During the course of the litigation, the Estate of Betty Lee Shore intervened
and moved to compel Shore to respond to certain discovery. The trial court
granted the motion to compel and on December 12, 2022, it awarded Kuers
$6,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and $2,244.20 for costs associated with the successful
prosecution of the motion to compel. One year later, after a bench trial, the trial
court signed a final judgment dated November 8, 2023, finding in favor of Kuers
on her breach of fiduciary duty claim and awarding Kuers $4,725.00 in economic
damages.3
Kuers filed a Motion for New Trial and in the Alternative, a Motion to
Modify Judgment (“Motion for New Trial”). Among other things, Kuers argued
she was entitled to a new trial because (1) the actual damages were “manifestly too
small in light of the uncontroverted facts at trial” and the trial court’s determination
that Shore committed breach of fiduciary duty, (2) she was entitled to exemplary
damages because of Shore’s gross negligence, and (3) she was entitled to
attorneys’ fees. In requesting that the court modify the final judgment, Kuers
argued for sixteen mostly substantive modifications, including one awarding
3 The trial court found Shore was not liable for conversion and that Kuers was not entitled to declaratory relief. The record lacks any indication as to the disposition of Kuers’ claim for injunctive relief.
3 prejudgment interest and one awarding post-judgment interest.4 After a hearing,
the trial court denied the Motion for New Trial.5
This appeal ensued.
Prejudgment Interest
In her first issue, Kuers argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing
to award prejudgment interest.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
An award of prejudgment interest may stem from one of two sources: (1)
general principles of equity or (2) an enabling statute. Fortitude Energy, LLC v.
Sooner Pipe LLC, 564 S.W.3d 167, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no
pet.); Hoelscher v. Kilman, No. 03-04-00440-CV, 2006 WL 358238, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Austin Feb. 16, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Johnson & Higgins, Inc.
v. Kenneco Energy, 962 S.W.2d 507, 528 (Tex. 1998)). The Finance Code
contains three enabling statutes relevant for prejudgment interest, but these statutes 4 In her brief in support of her Motion to Modify the Judgment, Kuers argued only with respect to pre- and post-judgment interest that both were required pursuant to the Texas Finance Code. 5 There was no substantive argument regarding pre- or post-judgment interest during the hearing on the Motion for New Trial. Kuers merely stated: And then the other piece that needs to be included, of course, the prejudgment and the post judgment interest needs to be included in the judgment so that a writ can be obtained on those items. Later, when the court inquired of Shore’s counsel whether he thought modification to the judgment was required so “to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest,” Kuers’ attorney responded only that prejudgment interest had been requested. There was no other argument advanced.
4 only apply to claims for wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage, see
TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.101, condemnation cases, see id. § 304.201, and credit
transactions, see id. §302.002. See Bierscheid v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 606
S.W.3d 493, 544 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). No statute
authorizes an award of prejudgment interest for claims involving breach of
fiduciary duty. Holliday v. Weaver, No. 05-15-00490-CV, 2016 WL 3660261, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
“Where no statute controls, the decision to award prejudgment interest is left
to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id.; see also Hoelscher, 2006 WL
358238, at *5 (“If no statute requires pre-judgment interest to be awarded, a court
has the discretion to award pre-judgment interest if it determines an award is
appropriate based on the facts of the case.”);6 Bierscheid, 606 S.W.3d at 544
(noting appellate courts review trial court’s decision regarding award of
prejudgment interest for abuse of discretion). A trial court abuses its discretion if it
acts “without reference to guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or
unreasonable manner.” In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig.
proceeding) (citing In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
proceeding)).
6 See, e.g., Dernick Res., Inc. v. Wilstein, 471 S.W.3d 468, 488 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (affirming award of prejudgment interest based on court’s analysis “of all the equitable principles involved” in case where damages were awarded for breach of fiduciary duty).
5 B. Analysis
Kuers globally argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award
prejudgment interest in the final judgment, but she does not explain how the trial
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Opinion issued August 14, 2025
In The
Court of Appeals For The
First District of Texas ———————————— NO. 01-24-00098-CV ——————————— MARY JEANNINE SHORE KUERS, INDIVIDUALLY & SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE FOR THE SHORE IRREVOCABLE TRUST, Appellant V. WILLIAM RICHARD SHORE, JR., Appellee
On Appeal from the 239th District Court Brazoria County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 91848-CV
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant Mary Jeanine Shore Kuers, individually and as successor trustee
for the Shore Irrevocable Trust, filed suit against Appellee William Richard Shore,
Jr., then the trustee of the Shore Irrevocable Trust. Kuers alleged breach of
fiduciary duty, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief. During the course of the litigation, the trial court awarded Kuers $8,224.20 in attorneys’ fees
plus costs for successfully prosecuting a motion to compel against Shore. Nearly a
year later, the trial court issued a final judgment awarding Kuers $4,725.00 in
economic damages on her breach of fiduciary duty claim. The final judgment did
not award prejudgment or post-judgment interest, even though Kuers pleaded for
both.1
In two issues, Kuers argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to
award prejudgment and post-judgment interest in the final judgment. We reverse
and remand to the trial court for a calculation of post-judgment interest. We affirm
the trial court’s judgment in all other respects.2
Background
William Richard Shore, Jr. was named trustee of the Shore Irrevocable
Trust, a trust established by his mother Betty Lee Shore in June 2016. He was
removed as trustee in 2017. That same year, Mary Jeanine Shore Kuers, the
successor trustee of the Shore Irrevocable Trust, sued Shore asserting claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, and declaratory and injunctive relief. As part
of her prayer for relief, Kuers requested the recovery of “prejudgment and post-
judgment interest as allowed by law.”
1 The petition in intervention is not in the record. 2 Neither party appeals the merits of the judgment.
2 During the course of the litigation, the Estate of Betty Lee Shore intervened
and moved to compel Shore to respond to certain discovery. The trial court
granted the motion to compel and on December 12, 2022, it awarded Kuers
$6,000.00 in attorneys’ fees and $2,244.20 for costs associated with the successful
prosecution of the motion to compel. One year later, after a bench trial, the trial
court signed a final judgment dated November 8, 2023, finding in favor of Kuers
on her breach of fiduciary duty claim and awarding Kuers $4,725.00 in economic
damages.3
Kuers filed a Motion for New Trial and in the Alternative, a Motion to
Modify Judgment (“Motion for New Trial”). Among other things, Kuers argued
she was entitled to a new trial because (1) the actual damages were “manifestly too
small in light of the uncontroverted facts at trial” and the trial court’s determination
that Shore committed breach of fiduciary duty, (2) she was entitled to exemplary
damages because of Shore’s gross negligence, and (3) she was entitled to
attorneys’ fees. In requesting that the court modify the final judgment, Kuers
argued for sixteen mostly substantive modifications, including one awarding
3 The trial court found Shore was not liable for conversion and that Kuers was not entitled to declaratory relief. The record lacks any indication as to the disposition of Kuers’ claim for injunctive relief.
3 prejudgment interest and one awarding post-judgment interest.4 After a hearing,
the trial court denied the Motion for New Trial.5
This appeal ensued.
Prejudgment Interest
In her first issue, Kuers argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing
to award prejudgment interest.
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
An award of prejudgment interest may stem from one of two sources: (1)
general principles of equity or (2) an enabling statute. Fortitude Energy, LLC v.
Sooner Pipe LLC, 564 S.W.3d 167, 188 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2018, no
pet.); Hoelscher v. Kilman, No. 03-04-00440-CV, 2006 WL 358238, at *5 (Tex.
App.—Austin Feb. 16, 2006, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Johnson & Higgins, Inc.
v. Kenneco Energy, 962 S.W.2d 507, 528 (Tex. 1998)). The Finance Code
contains three enabling statutes relevant for prejudgment interest, but these statutes 4 In her brief in support of her Motion to Modify the Judgment, Kuers argued only with respect to pre- and post-judgment interest that both were required pursuant to the Texas Finance Code. 5 There was no substantive argument regarding pre- or post-judgment interest during the hearing on the Motion for New Trial. Kuers merely stated: And then the other piece that needs to be included, of course, the prejudgment and the post judgment interest needs to be included in the judgment so that a writ can be obtained on those items. Later, when the court inquired of Shore’s counsel whether he thought modification to the judgment was required so “to award prejudgment and post-judgment interest,” Kuers’ attorney responded only that prejudgment interest had been requested. There was no other argument advanced.
4 only apply to claims for wrongful death, personal injury, or property damage, see
TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.101, condemnation cases, see id. § 304.201, and credit
transactions, see id. §302.002. See Bierscheid v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 606
S.W.3d 493, 544 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied). No statute
authorizes an award of prejudgment interest for claims involving breach of
fiduciary duty. Holliday v. Weaver, No. 05-15-00490-CV, 2016 WL 3660261, at
*2 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 7, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.).
“Where no statute controls, the decision to award prejudgment interest is left
to the sound discretion of the trial court.” Id.; see also Hoelscher, 2006 WL
358238, at *5 (“If no statute requires pre-judgment interest to be awarded, a court
has the discretion to award pre-judgment interest if it determines an award is
appropriate based on the facts of the case.”);6 Bierscheid, 606 S.W.3d at 544
(noting appellate courts review trial court’s decision regarding award of
prejudgment interest for abuse of discretion). A trial court abuses its discretion if it
acts “without reference to guiding rules or principles or in an arbitrary or
unreasonable manner.” In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig.
proceeding) (citing In re Ford Motor Co., 165 S.W.3d 315, 317 (Tex. 2005) (orig.
proceeding)).
6 See, e.g., Dernick Res., Inc. v. Wilstein, 471 S.W.3d 468, 488 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, pet. denied) (affirming award of prejudgment interest based on court’s analysis “of all the equitable principles involved” in case where damages were awarded for breach of fiduciary duty).
5 B. Analysis
Kuers globally argues the trial court abused its discretion in failing to award
prejudgment interest in the final judgment, but she does not explain how the trial
court abused its discretion, or why “general principles of equity” required the
award of prejudgment interest in her case. See Fortitude Energy, 564 S.W.3d at
188. She argues only that because she pled for prejudgment interest, she was
entitled to prejudgment interest in addition to the damages awarded by the trial
court.7 We disagree.
Having reviewed the record, we cannot conclude the trial court’s decision
“was so arbitrary or unreasonable to amount to a clear error of law.” See
Hoelscher, 2006 WL 358238, at *6 (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in
failing to award prejudgment interest on contract damages); Campbell v. Luong,
No. 04-16-00460-CV, 2017 WL 3044591, at *8 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 19,
2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion in failing
to award prejudgment interest, noting “trial court could have determined that
Luong’s recovery of actual damages, additional damages, and attorney’s fees was
adequate compensation”).
We overrule Kuers’ first issue.
7 Kuers did not argue in her Motion for New Trial or in her brief in support of her Motion to Modify the Judgment that equitable principles or any enabling statute entitled her to prejudgment interest. 6 Post-judgment Interest
In her second issue, Kuers argues the trial court abused its discretion in
failing to award post-judgment interest.
Post-judgment interest “accrues automatically and is recoverable even if not
specifically awarded in the judgment.” Accent Builders, Inc. v. Session, No. 05-
23-00675-CV, 2024 WL 3100696, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 24, 2024, no
pet.); see also Waste Mgmt. of Tex., Inc. v. Tex. Disposal Sys. Landfill, Inc., No.
03-10-00826-CV, 2014 WL 6705741, at *2 (Tex. App.—Austin Nov. 14, 2014, no
pet.) (mem. op.) (“Under the Finance Code, post-judgment interest is mandatory
for every money judgment awarded by a court.”).8 As the Texas Supreme Court
has explained, “post-judgment interest is simply compensation for a judgment
creditor’s lost opportunity to invest the money awarded as damages at trial.” Miga
v. Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207, 212 (Tex. 2002).
The determination of when post-judgment interest begins to accrue is a
matter of statutory interpretation and interpretation of the rules of procedure, which
we review de novo. Long v. Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’ship, 426 S.W.3d 73, 78
(Tex. 2014).
8 See TEX. FIN. CODE § 304.001 (“A money judgment of a court in this state must specify the postjudgment interest rate applicable to that judgment.”).
7 B. Discussion
Kuers argues she is entitled to post-judgment interest on (1) her
compensatory damage award of $4,725.00; (2) the prejudgment interest of
$2,597.91 on that award; (3) the award for $8,224.20 for attorneys’ fee and costs in
connection with the Motion to Compel; and (4) prejudgment interest of $633.94 on
that award. We agree in part. While we conclude that Kuers is entitled to post-
judgment interest, we disagree with her computation.
We have already concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
declining to award prejudgment interest. Thus, prejudgment interest should not be
included in the calculation of any post-judgment interest to which Kuers is entitled.
Further, we agree with Shore that the date from which post-judgment interest
should be calculated for all money owed is November 8, 2023—the date of the
Final Judgment—and that the amount upon which post-judgment interest should be
calculated is $12,949.20, which comprises the compensatory damage award of
$4,725.00 and the $8,224.20 award for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred with
respect to the Motion to Compel.9
9 The parties agree that the December 12, 2022 award of attorneys’ fees and costs merged into the November 8, 2023 final judgment. The parties also agree that postjudgment interest should be calculated beginning on November 8, 2023.
8 We sustain Kuers’ second issue to the extent she argues she is entitled to
post-judgment interest, but we do not adopt her calculation of post-judgment
interest due.
We remand to the trial court for a calculation of post-judgment interest from
November 8, 2023. See Cotter v. Tobey, No. 04-04-00082-CV, 2005 WL 291462,
at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Feb. 9, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (affirming
damage award and remanding to trial court for calculation of post-judgment
interest); Long v. Lopez, 115 S.W.3d 221, 229 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no
pet.) (remanding for calculation of post-judgment interest, among other things);
Peterson Grp., Inc. v. PLTQ Lotus Grp., L.P., 417 S.W.3d 46, 66 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, pet. denied) (same).
Conclusion
We reverse the trial court’s judgment to the extent it excludes post-judgment
interest, and we remand to the trial court for a calculation of post-judgment
interest. We affirm the remainder of the judgment.
Veronica Rivas-Molloy Justice
Panel consists of Justices Rivas-Molloy, Guiney, and Morgan.