Protecting Your Legacy to Avoid Exploitation: Planning Lessons from Amy v. West-Cobb

As seniors plan, ensuring financial security and protecting assets are top priorities. A recent Texas Court of Appeals case, Amy v. West-Cobb, No. 03-24-00693-CV (Tex. App. July 3, 2025), serves as a stark reminder of how vulnerable elders can be to financial exploitation and how critical proper estate planning is to avoid disputes that drain estates and consume resources. This case, involving a police officer and his wife exploiting an elderly woman with dementia, underscores the risks of poorly drafted powers of attorney (POAs) and inadequate oversight. Below, we explore the case, its implications for seniors, and actionable steps to prevent similar controversies

The Amy v. West-Cobb Case: A Cautionary TaleIn Amy v. West-Cobb, Phyllis West-Cobb, an elderly woman with dementia, faced significant financial abuse after her husband’s death in 2015. Phyllis held a life estate in her marital home but developed a close relationship with Patrick Amy, a police officer, and his wife, Ruth. The Amys exploited Phyllis’s vulnerability, leading to a series of troubling actions:

• Financial Transactions: In 2016, Phyllis paid off the Amys’ $125,647.32 home mortgage. They made payments under a promissory note until 2017, when they stopped, claiming Phyllis instructed them to do so.
• Power of Attorney Abuse: In 2017, Patrick drafted a durable POA naming himself as Phyllis’s agent. Using this authority, he released the lien on his promissory note, transferred Phyllis’s new home to himself via a quitclaim deed, attempted to transfer her car title, and listed her home for sale. Although he later returned the home to Phyllis, this delayed her Medicaid eligibility, forcing her to self-pay for nursing home care.
• Isolation and Misrepresentation: When Phyllis became confused and drove to Houston, Patrick retrieved her but misrepresented to medical personnel and others that she had no family, cutting off contact with her daughter, Tammy Lewis.
• Legal Action: After Adult Protective Services (APS) intervened, Tammy revoked Patrick’s POA and sue, on behalf of her mother Phyllis, sued the Amys for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, theft, conversion, and conspiracy. The trial court awarded Phyllis compensatory and exemplary damages, imposed a constructive trust on the Amys’ home (valued at $250,350), and ordered its sale. The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of fiduciary breach and unjust enrichment, as Phyllis’s funds were traceable to the Amys’ homestead.

This case illustrates how quickly an estate can be depleted through exploitation, especially when a senior with diminished capacity lacks robust safeguards. The financial and emotional toll, not to mention the costs, highlights the need for proactive planning.What This Case Means for Seniors Planning to Age in PlaceFor seniors aiming to age in place, Amy v. West-Cobb reveals several risks:

1. Vulnerability to Exploitation: Seniors with cognitive decline, like Phyllis, are prime targets for financial abuse, especially by trusted individuals like caregivers, neighbors, or, in this case, a police officer. Isolation exacerbates this risk, as seen when Phyllis was cut off from her daughter.
2. Broad POA Powers: A durable POA granting broad authority without oversight,  limitations, or restrictions (even if in the form of statements of intention), enabled Patrick to misuse Phyllis’s assets. Without clear limits or accountability, a POA can become a tool for abuse rather than protection.
3. Impact on Medicaid Eligibility: Patrick’s actions delayed Phyllis’s Medicaid eligibility, forcing her to self-pay for nursing home care. Improper asset transfers can trigger penalties, jeopardizing long-term care planning.
4. Estate Depletion: The legal battle to recover Phyllis’s assets was costly and time-consuming. Even with a favorable ruling, litigation drains resources and may not fully restore losses.
5. Homestead Protections: In Texas, homesteads are heavily protected from creditors, but the court imposed a constructive trust because Phyllis’s funds were traceable to the Amys’ home. This shows that fraudulent actions can overcome homestead or other legal protections, but only through complex legal remedies.

Planning Strategies to Avoid Similar ControversiesTo protect your estate and avoid disputes like those in Amy v. West-Cobb, seniors and their families can take these steps:

1. Draft a Tailored Power of Attorney:
   • Utilize a Trust to own, control, and direct property of your estate: aside from allowing a more extensive set of controls and limitations, a trust advises third parties that you have trusted family members, making exploitation by third parties much harder.  Moreover, a General Power of Attorney is simply "created," each revoking any prior POA, while amending or revoking a trsut is a much more cumbersome process, almost always entailing counsel participation or involvement, making exploitation harder if not impossible.   
   • If you don't have a trust, work with an experienced elder law attorney to create a POA with specific, limited powers and consider recording or filing the POA as a public record. Avoid broad “general authority” clauses unless necessary, and include oversight mechanisms, such as requiring a second agent’s approval for major transactions (e.g., property transfers).
   • Consider a springing POA, which activates only upon incapacity, reducing the risk of premature misuse, but understand and appreciate their limitations and risks (if you want to read articles regarding these, go to the topics at the lower right margin of this blog and find the label starting with "springing").
   • Appoint a trusted agent, ideally a family member or professional fiduciary, and avoid granting authority to non-family members without thorough vetting.
2. Establish a Revocable Living Trust:
   • A revocable living trust can manage assets during your lifetime and after death, with a trusted successor trustee stepping in if you become incapacitated. Unlike a POA, a trust can include detailed instructions and oversight by co-trustees or a trust protector to prevent abuse.
   • Ensure the trust document limits the trustee’s ability to make self-serving transactions and requires regular reporting to beneficiaries.
3. Appoint Multiple Fiduciaries:
   • Designate, where appropriate co-trustees to share decision-making, reducing the risk of unilateral abuse. For example, require two signatures for significant financial decisions.
   • Appoint a trust protector or monitor to oversee the agent or trustee, with authority to intervene if misconduct is suspected (if you want to read articles regarding trust protectors, go to the labels at the lower right margin of this blog and find the label "trust protector."
4. Safeguard Against Isolation:
   • Maintain regular contact with family, friends, and advisors to prevent isolation, which predators exploit. Share your estate plan with trusted loved ones to ensure transparency.
   • Include provisions in your POA or trust requiring agents to notify family members of major decisions or changes in your health or residence.
5. Plan for Medicaid Eligibility:
   • Consult an elder law attorney to structure your estate to preserve Medicaid eligibility. Avoid unauthorized asset transfers, which can trigger penalties, as seen in Phyllis’s case.
   • Use tools like Medicaid-compliant trusts to protect assets while ensuring eligibility for long-term care benefits.
6. Secure Legal Documents:
   • Store your POA, trust, and other documents with a trusted attorney or in a secure location, and limit access to authorized individuals. Phyllis’s case shows how an agent drafting their own POA can lead to abuse.
   • Regularly review and update your documents to reflect changes in relationships or health.
7. Engage Professional Advisors:
   • Work with an elder law attorney, financial planner, and CPA to create a comprehensive aging-in-place plan. These professionals can identify red flags, ensure compliance with state laws, and protect your assets.
   • Consider hiring a professional fiduciary if family members are unavailable or unsuitable to serve as agents or trustees.
8. Monitor Financial Activity:
   • Set up alerts with your bank to notify you or a trusted contact of unusual transactions. Provide account access to a secondary trusted person to monitor activity.
   • Require periodic accountings from your POA agent or trustee to ensure transparency.

How Texas Law Differs from Other StatesThe Amy v. West-Cobb case was resolved under Texas law, which has unique features that influenced the outcome. Here’s how Texas law compares to other states and whether the case might have been resolved differently elsewhere:

1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty:
   • Texas Law: Texas imposes a high fiduciary duty on POA agents, requiring them to act in the principal’s best interests with honesty, loyalty, and care (Texas Estates Code Section 751.101). Breach of this duty, as in Patrick’s self-serving transactions, supports tort claims with remedies like compensatory and exemplary (punitive) damages. Texas also recognizes informal fiduciary duties arising from relationships of trust, which applied to the Amys’ close relationship with Phyllis.
   • Other States: Most states recognize fiduciary duties for POA agents, but the scope varies. For example, California’s Uniform Power of Attorney Act (Probate Code Sections 4000–4545) similarly imposes fiduciary duties, but some states, like New York, require explicit statutory violations for punitive damages, which might limit recovery unless fraud is proven. Texas’s broad recognition of informal fiduciary duties (e.g., based on moral or personal relationships) is less common in states like Florida, where fiduciary duties are more strictly tied to formal roles.
2. Constructive Trust as a Remedy:
   • Texas Law: Texas courts readily impose constructive trusts to prevent unjust enrichment when funds are traceable to specific property, even a homestead (Texas Property Code Section 111.0035). In Amy v. West-Cobb, the court traced Phyllis’s $125,647.32 to the Amys’ home, overcoming Texas’s strong homestead protections (Texas Constitution, Article XVI, Section 50). This remedy is a hallmark of Texas’s equitable approach to fiduciary breaches.
   • Other States: Other states, like California or Illinois, also use constructive trusts but may have stricter tracing requirements or different homestead exemptions. For example, Florida’s homestead protections (Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 4) are among the strongest, potentially making it harder to impose a constructive trust on a homestead unless fraud is clearly established. In states like Ohio, courts may prioritize restitution over equitable remedies, potentially limiting recovery to monetary damages rather than property seizure.
3. Exemplary Damages:
   • Texas Law: Texas allows exemplary damages for fiduciary breaches involving fraud, malice, or gross negligence (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 41.003). The Amy v. West-Cobb court upheld these damages due to the Amys’ intentional misconduct. Texas’s four-year statute of limitations for fiduciary breach claims (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 16.004) also gave Phyllis ample time to sue.
   • Other States: States like California and New York also permit punitive damages for fiduciary breaches but may require higher thresholds (e.g., “clear and convincing evidence” of malice in California, Civil Code Section 3294). Some states, like Massachusetts, have shorter statutes of limitations (e.g., three years for torts), which could bar claims if not filed promptly.
4. Elder Abuse Protections:
   • Texas Law: Texas’s theft liability statute (Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 134.001) and APS involvement strengthened Phyllis’s case by addressing elder financial abuse. Texas courts view elder exploitation as a serious violation, supporting robust remedies like those in Amy v. West-Cobb.
   • Other States: States like California have specific elder abuse statutes (Welfare and Institutions Code Section 15600 et seq.) that enhance damages for financial abuse of elders, potentially leading to similar outcomes. However, states without dedicated elder abuse laws, like Ohio, may rely solely on common law fiduciary claims, which could limit remedies to actual damages unless fraud is proven.
5. Homestead Protections:
   • Texas Law: Texas’s homestead protections are among the strongest in the U.S., shielding homes from most creditors. However, the Amy v. West-Cobb court bypassed this by imposing a constructive trust, as the Amys’ home was purchased with Phyllis’s funds.
   • Other States: Florida and Kansas also have strong homestead protections, but states like New York or Illinois have weaker exemptions, making it easier to seize property for fiduciary breaches. In states with limited homestead protections, the remedy might focus on direct seizure rather than a constructive trust, simplifying enforcement but altering the legal approach.

Could the Case Have Been Resolved Differently Elsewhere?While the core claims (breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment) would likely be recognized in most states, the resolution might differ due to:

• Stricter Homestead Protections: In Florida, the Amys’ homestead might have been harder to reach, requiring stronger evidence of fraud to overcome constitutional protections.
• Limited Fiduciary Duty Scope: In states like Ohio or Massachusetts, the informal fiduciary duty based on the Amys’ relationship with Phyllis might not be recognized, potentially weakening the case unless the POA abuse was the sole focus.
• Damages and Statutes of Limitations: States with shorter limitations periods or stricter punitive damage requirements might limit recovery. For example, a three-year statute in Massachusetts could have barred some claims if Tammy delayed filing.
• Elder Abuse Statutes: States like California or Illinois, with robust elder abuse laws, might enhance damages or provide additional remedies, potentially leading to a stronger outcome for Phyllis. Conversely, states without such statutes might limit recovery to common law remedies.

Overall, Texas’s combination of strong fiduciary duty laws, flexible equitable remedies, and elder abuse protections made it well-suited to address Phyllis’s case. States with weaker protections or stricter procedural requirements might have resulted in reduced damages or a focus on monetary remedies rather than property seizure.  These differences and distinctions highlight the importance of capable legal guidance in crafting (designing), drafting, and implementing your plan. Take Action to Protect Your FutureThe Amy v. West-Cobb case underscores the importance of proactive estate planning to protect seniors aging in place. To avoid similar controversies:

• Consult an Elder Law Attorney: Work with a professional to draft tailored POAs, trusts, and other documents that limit agent powers and include oversight.
• Stay Connected: Maintain strong ties with family and advisors to prevent isolation and ensure transparency.
• Review Your Plan Regularly: Update your estate plan to reflect changes in health, relationships, or assets, and store documents securely.
• Educate Yourself: Learn your rights as a trust beneficiary or principal under a POA. 

By taking these steps, seniors can safeguard their assets, preserve their legacy, and avoid costly legal battles. If you’re planning to age in place, contact our office for a consultation to create a comprehensive plan tailored to your needs. Don’t let your legacy fall victim to exploitation; act today to protect your future.