Michael Combs and Michael Combs Properties, LLC v. Diane Crepeau and Lari Reninger, 05-23-00088-CV

After the death of Betty Combs, two of her children, Diane Crepeau and Lari Reninger, sued their brother Michael Combs and his LLC, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and fraud related to management of Betty’s finances under a family plan intended to maximize retirement funds and Medicaid eligibility.
The Plan, devised by siblings with parental consent, included transferring assets to Michael and the LLC to qualify for Medicaid, with an understanding remaining assets would be shared equally among all siblings.
Disputes arose posthumously over the distribution of assets, alleged personal use of funds by Michael, and accounting discrepancies.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Diane and Lari, finding Michael breached fiduciary duties, and later, a jury awarded substantial compensatory damages and imposed a constructive trust against Michael and his LLC.
Michael appealed, challenging the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the damages and other findings.
The appellate court reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for Diane and Lari, finding insufficient evidence of actual damages, and awarded $30,000 to Michael on his counterclaim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of Evidence of Damages	Michael’s actions reduced estate value through mismanagement, justifying large damages.	Evidence fails to show causation or precise loss; assets were used for intended purposes and/or available for division.	Evidence legally insufficient to support jury’s award or show actionable harm.
Appropriation of Assets and Fiduciary Duty	Michael misused and personally benefitted from estate funds; failed to provide adequate accounting.	Michael managed assets for parents’ benefit as per plan; remaining assets still to be shared.	Plaintiffs failed to prove Michael misappropriated assets or breached fiduciary duties causing quantifiable damage.
Division of TMRS Survivor Benefits	Survivor benefits were meant to be split among siblings.; Michael wrongfully retained the entire amount.	Michael was the sole legal beneficiary as designated by decedent; no enforceable will provision to the contrary.	No evidence plaintiffs entitled to survivor benefits; self-created letter not legally binding.
Validity of Constructive Trust and Award Structure	Michael’s conduct justifies constructive trust and broad damages awards.	No constructive trust warranted; damages too speculative and not tied to actual proven losses.	Constructive trust dissolved; prior judgment for plaintiffs reversed.

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (sets standard for legal sufficiency review of evidence)
Aquaplex, Inc. v. Rancho La Valencia, Inc., 297 S.W.3d 768 (Tex. 2009) (outlines damage measures for fraud claims)
Formosa Plastics Corp. U.S.A. v. Presidio Eng’rs and Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (differentiates damages for fraud: out-of-pocket vs. benefit-of-the-bargain)
Arthur Andersen & Co. v. Perry Equip. Corp., 945 S.W.2d 812 (Tex. 1997) (damages can be measured as direct or consequential for misrepresentation)
Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221 S.W.3d 632 (Tex. 2007) (discusses expectancy vs. restitutionary damages)
First United Pentecostal Church of Beaumont v. Parker, 514 S.W.3d 214 (Tex. 2017) (damage causation requirement in fiduciary duty claims)