The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order awarding compensatory and exemplary damages against a police officer and his wife and a constructive trust on their real property, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support its conclusion that the couple had breached fiduciary duties owed to an elderly woman with dementia and were unjustly enriched by their fraudulent and improper use of her money, which was traceable to their homestead interest in their house. Amy v. West-Cobb, No. 03-24-00693-CV (Tex. App. July 3, 2025).
Phyllis West-Cobb began exhibiting symptoms of dementia in 2008. When Phyllis’s husband died in 2015, his will provided her a life estate in the home in which they lived, and she continued to live there. His children were the remaindermen of the property at the termination of her life estate.
Several months after her husband’s death, Phyllis began participating in the police department’s Citizens on Patrol program and regularly rode along with Patrick Amy, a police officer, during his shifts. She also spent time with Patrick and his wife, Ruth, when Patrick was not on duty.
In 2016, Phyllis paid off Patrick and Ruth’s home mortgage, expending $125,647.32. The Amys made payments to her under a promissory note and deed of trust until 2017 when they stopped making payments, which they asserted was at Phyllis’s direction. In 2016, Phyllis purchased a house very close to the Amys’ house and moved into it, listing the home in which she had a life estate for sale. In 2018, the remaindermen sued Phyllis to clear title on the property and obtained a default judgment against her, terminating her life estate.
In 2017, Patrick drafted and Phyllis signed a durable power of attorney (POA) appointing Patrick as her agent for financial matters. As her agent, he signed a release of the lien securing the Amys’ promissory note owed to Phyllis; drafted, executed, and recorded a quitclaim deed transferring Phyllis’s new home to himself; filed an application to transfer title of Phyllis’s car to himself; drafted, executed, and filed another release of Phyllis’s lien; and contacted an agent to list the home for sale. He later recorded a quitclaim deed transferring the house back to Phyllis, resulting in a delay in her Medicaid eligibility and causing her to have to self-pay for her nursing home care.
During the time period when some of these transactions were occurring, Phyllis drove herself to Houston after becoming confused. Someone assisted her by calling Patrick and her daughter, Tammy Lewis. Patrick went to Houston to get Phyllis, and Tammy spoke to her after she returned home. Within a few weeks, however, Phyllis’s phone was turned off, and Tammy was not able to contact or find her. Tammy was not notified of Phyllis’s subsequent involuntary commitment to a hospital or admission to a nursing home, and Patrick represented to medical personnel and the real estate agent that Phyllis did not have any family.
The real estate and title agents became concerned and halted the sale of Phyllis’s house. In addition, the real estate agent contacted attorneys who reached out to Adult Protective Services (APS). As part of its investigation, APS contacted Tammy, and she was reunited with Phyllis. Phyllis then revoked Patrick’s POA and executed a new one appointing Tammy as her agent. Tammy and an attorney told the Amys’ son, who was living in Phyllis’s house, to move out.
APS determined that the Amys had been exploiting Phyllis, and Tammy sued them on Phyllis’s behalf, asserting breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, violation of Texas’s theft liability statute, conversion of property, and conspiracy. At trial, the jury found in favor of Phyllis, and the trial court awarded her compensatory and exemplary damages. It also imposed a constructive trust over $250,350 of the value of the Amys’ house and appointed a receiver to take possession of the property and market it for sale. The Amys appealed.
The Texas Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence was legally sufficient to show that the Amys had breached their fiduciary duties to Phyllis and to support an award of compensatory and exemplary damages to her. In addition, the court determined that the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the Amys were unjustly enriched by their actions and that their fraudulent and improper use of Phyllis’s money was traceable to their claimed homestead interest in their house; thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a constructive trust on the Amys’ property. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and its order imposing the constructive trust, the appointment of a receiver, and the sale of real property.
Subscribe to the Knowledge Bank.
