Texas Court Voids Home Title Transfer By 87-Year Old Widower To Caretaker; Evidence Proved Fraudulent Promises Were Made At Time Of Conveyance

In Beaumont, Texas, The Southeast Texas Record reports:

• Liberty County District Judge C. T. Hight correctly returned a home to an old man who signed it away, the Ninth District appeals court in Beaumont decided. Hight heard enough evidence to find that Peggy Ballard Williams defrauded Melvin Kaufman, three justices ruled.

• Kaufman, who was 87 when he conveyed his property to Williams, testified that she broke a promise to take care of him and keep him out of a nursing home. She testified that she promised nothing and received the property as a gift.

• Hight held that she made the promise and never intended to keep it. Ninth District Justice Hollis Horton wrote in a Jan. 8 opinion, "Based on the testimony before it, the trial court's conclusion finds support in the evidence."(1)

***

• He wrote, "Cancellation of a deed is a proper remedy when promises are fraudulently made with no intention of carrying them out at the time of the deed's execution."

For the details on how the 87-year old homeowner was found by the court to have been tricked into signing over the deed to his home to Williams, the great-niece of his deceased wife, see Appellate judges uphold Liberty County court finding of fraud in property dispute.

For the ruling of the Texas appellate court, see Williams v. Kaufman, NO. 09-07-00535-CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 37 (Tex. App.--Beaumont, January 8, 2009).

(1) According to the story, Justice Horton added, "Although none of the witnesses except Williams and Kaufman claimed to have any knowledge of the promise Williams allegedly made to Kaufman, we are not aware of any cases holding that corroboration of a promise is required in order for a court to find a witness's testimony about the promise credible." This goes to show that, even when there are no witnesses to the scam other than the victim and the scam artist, and none of the alleged fraudulent statements made by the scammer were reduced to writing, a victim can still bring a lawsuit and win by giving testimony that is more believable than the scammer's testimony. Unlike a criminal case, which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt in order to prevail, winning a civil case in a "he said, she said" situation requires simply that one party be slightly more believable than the other. KappaDeedTheft