Mary Kay Family Lawsuit: Trust, Adoption, and Board Removal

The Mary Kay family lawsuit is a set of connected cases filed in 2024 and 2025 pitting Richard Rogers, the son of company founder Mary Kay Ash, against his own son Ryan Rogers, the current CEO of Mary Kay Inc. At its core the fight is about money moving through sixteen family trusts, control of the cosmetics company, and a late-life adult adoption that could reshape who inherits. Richard Rogers died on March 31, 2026, at age 82, with the litigation still active.¹

What Triggered the Lawsuit

On November 1, 2024, Ryan Rogers and Tolleson Private Bank, acting as co-trustees of the Richard R. Rogers 1975 Trust, filed a declaratory judgment action against Richard Rogers in the 160th District Court of Dallas County, Texas.² Ryan’s attorney, Trey Cox of Gibson Dunn, said the suit was prompted by “conflicting distribution demands” from Richard for hundreds of millions of dollars without what the trustees viewed as adequate justification.³

The numbers behind that demand are unusual. From 1975 through 2021, Richard took no distributions from the trust. Starting in May 2021, he began receiving roughly $2 million a month, which Ryan’s side said amounted to 70 percent of all distributions, with the remaining 30 percent split among the other 13 beneficiaries. Richard then asked for a lump-sum “catch-up” that grew to more than $138 million by April 2024. The co-trustees refused, saying he had not supplied the financial documentation needed to justify it.⁴

Richard told the distribution story differently. A spokesperson said he and his wife Nancy received nothing between 2012 and 2020, a period in which Ryan and Tolleson authorized nearly $200 million in distributions, including $70 million to Ryan personally.³

The Golden Rule Counterclaims

Richard responded with counterclaims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust against both Ryan and Tolleson Private Bank.⁵ The central allegation involves two entities Ryan created at the end of 2021: Golden Rule Management, LLC and Golden Rule Investments, LP. GRM serves as general partner of GRI, and the sixteen family trusts transferred roughly $1.6 billion in liquid and investment assets into GRI in exchange for limited partnership interests.

Richard’s filings allege that the GRI partnership agreement gave Ryan sole discretion to distribute 20 percent of the trusts’ profits to himself, and that this provision was never properly disclosed to beneficiaries or to the Mary Kay board. According to Richard, Ryan diverted nearly $37 million from the trusts through this structure in 2023 alone. Richard also alleged that Ryan obtained board approval for the arrangement by supplying “incomplete and misleading information” and backdated board consent to show an earlier approval date.⁶ Ryan’s legal team has called the allegations “false and without merit.”³

Allegations About the Company’s Finances

The trust dispute widened into a direct attack on Ryan’s stewardship of Mary Kay Inc. In an August 2025 letter to the Mary Kay Holding Corp. board, Richard wrote that “the company’s financial situation has become dire and continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate.” He cited figures from company filings:

Net sales in the first half of 2025 on pace for about $707 million, compared with $2.08 billion for all of 2021.
An operating loss of $15.9 million in the first half of 2025, versus operating income of $26.8 million in 2021.
Total assets falling from $1.46 billion in 2021 to $1.11 billion by mid-2025.³

The company also stopped paying dividends to its owners in 2022.⁴ Richard urged the board to run a strategic review, appoint independent directors, consider a sale or restructuring, and hire a search firm to find a new CEO, writing that “Ryan has to step aside and do what is best for the company.”³

Ryan’s Defense and the Competency Question

Cox said Ryan had “guided the company with transparency and accountability” and was investing in long-term growth, innovation, and technology. Mary Kay Inc. publicly backed its CEO, citing investments in technology, research, and international expansion.³

Ryan’s side also suggested Richard, who was 82 and wheelchair-bound, was not driving the litigation himself. They pointed to “outside advisors and counsel assembled at the direction of Richard’s wife, Nancy Rogers.” Ryan asked the court to order a competency examination of his father. A judge denied the request, finding Ryan had not offered concrete evidence of incompetence.⁷ A spokesperson for Richard and Nancy called the competency angle a “smokescreen” to distract from mismanagement.³

The Adult Adoption of Olivia Abbott

On February 27, 2025, Richard and Nancy Rogers adopted Olivia Abbott, a 22-year-old woman. Ryan and the other trust beneficiaries called it a “sham adoption” designed to route trust assets to people outside the bloodline. The 1975 Trust limits Richard’s interest to his blood descendants upon his death, so adopting Olivia would potentially enlarge the pool of takers.⁴

Ryan’s petition asks the court to declare the adoption “void and of no force or effect” and to rule that Olivia is not a beneficiary.⁶ Richard’s daughter Terri Rogers sided with Ryan on this issue, framing the adoption as part of a scheme by Nancy to funnel wealth to herself.⁴ Olivia Abbott filed a mandamus petition that reached the Supreme Court of Texas, which denied it on February 18, 2026.⁸

The Delaware Case and Richard’s Removal From the Board

Richard opened a second front in Delaware. On August 27, 2025, he sued Mary Kay Holding Corporation in the Court of Chancery seeking advancement of the legal fees he was running up in Texas, arguing the company had agreed to cover such costs and that refusing amounted to retaliation.⁹

Mary Kay Holding Corp. argued the Texas suit was a “personal trust dispute” unrelated to Richard’s service as a director. On November 17, 2025, the Court of Chancery granted the company summary judgment, holding the dispute did not arise “by reason of the fact” of his service as a director. The court’s opinion noted that on October 22, 2025, Ryan had removed Richard as a director and officer of the holding company, claiming to vote the majority of the corporation’s stock.² A spokesperson for Richard called the removal a “calculated power grab.”³

Where Things Stand After Richard’s Death

The Dallas County case was in discovery when Richard Rogers died on March 31, 2026, with a trial date that had been set for February 23, 2026.²¹ The available reporting does not detail how his death affected the litigation’s trajectory, the disposition of his trust interests, or the challenge to Olivia Abbott’s adoption.

Ryan Rogers remains CEO. Mary Kay Inc. has announced plans to sell its more than 500,000-square-foot campus in Addison, Texas, where over 1,200 people work.¹

1
The Dallas Morning News. Richard Rogers, Son of Mary Kay Ash and Former Company Leader, Dies
2
CaseMine. Rogers v. Mary Kay Holding Corp.
3
D Magazine. Mary Kay Ash’s Son and Grandson Locked in Legal Battle for Future of the Company
4
Pink Truth. Mary Kay Ash’s Family Is Fighting Over Money
5
vLex. Rogers v. Mary Kay Holding Corp.
6
Pink Truth. Richard Rogers’ Motion to Compel Production of Ryan Rogers’ Documents
7
Pink Truth. Mary Kay Inc. Is Bleeding Money
8
SCOTX Blog. In Re Olivia Abbott, No. 26-0134
9
Texas Lawbook. Mary Kay Founder Denied Bid for Legal Funds