## Facts

- Stephen Carl Smith and Mary Deneve had a romantic relationship and lived together in Texas for about 14 years.
- During the relationship, they opened a joint bank account, shared living expenses, and shared a car-insurance policy.
- Deneve acquired major property in her own name while the parties lived together (including a Dallas residence and later a boat).
- Smith did not rely on Deneve for financial management; he was not guided by her judgment and did not receive financial advice from her that influenced his financial affairs.
- After the relationship ended, Smith sued Deneve seeking an ownership interest in property titled in her name, asserting (among other theories) breach of fiduciary duty and a constructive trust.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Deneve, struck one pleaded theory after special exceptions, excluded portions of Smith’s summary-judgment evidence, rendered a take-nothing judgment on Smith’s remaining claims, and awarded Deneve attorney’s fees (including conditional appellate fees).
- Smith appealed the final summary judgment and the fee award.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence raised a genuine fact issue that the parties’ long-term cohabitation and shared finances created an informal confidential relationship imposing fiduciary duties on Deneve.
2. Whether, absent proof of a fiduciary/confidential relationship (or comparable wrongful conduct), Smith raised a fact issue supporting a constructive trust over property titled in Deneve’s name.
3. Whether Smith produced evidence sufficient to avoid summary judgment on his other non-marital property and restitution theories (including partnership/joint venture, quantum meruit, and resulting trust), as pleaded and challenged by Deneve’s motions.
4. Whether the trial court properly sustained objections to, and excluded portions of, Smith’s summary-judgment evidence.
5. Whether the attorney’s-fee award could stand in light of the appellate disposition and any limits on fee recovery and segregation.

## Decision

- The court of appeals **affirmed in part and reversed in part**, and **remanded** for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The court **affirmed** summary judgment rejecting Smith’s claim that Deneve owed him fiduciary duties based solely on their romantic cohabitation and shared household finances.
- Because Smith failed to raise a fact issue establishing a fiduciary/confidential relationship, the court **affirmed** summary judgment against Smith on constructive-trust relief to the extent it depended on that missing duty.
- The court reviewed Smith’s remaining equitable and restitution theories claim-by-claim under the applicable traditional and no-evidence standards, **affirming some take-nothing rulings and reversing others** where Smith raised a material fact issue on required elements.
- The court **affirmed** the trial court’s challenged evidentiary rulings to the extent the excluded materials were conclusory or otherwise not competent summary-judgment proof.
- The court **reversed the attorney’s-fee award in part** and **remanded** for reconsideration and any required segregation or reallocation in light of the partial affirmance and partial reversal.

## Legal Principles

- A no-evidence summary judgment is proper unless the nonmovant produces more than a scintilla of evidence raising a genuine fact issue on the challenged elements of the claim.
- An informal confidential relationship (which can create fiduciary duties) is not shown by romantic involvement, cohabitation, or shared bills alone; the claimant must show trust and reliance of a kind where one person is guided by the other’s judgment in financial or business matters.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy typically tied to wrongful conduct such as breach of a fiduciary/confidential duty, fraud, or similar unjust conduct; it is not imposed merely because one partner to a nonmarital relationship contributed to shared living or expenses.
- A partnership or joint venture requires evidence of an agreement and recognized indicators such as shared control and an intent to share profits and losses; a domestic arrangement and cost-sharing do not, by themselves, create a business entity.
- Quantum meruit requires proof of valuable services or materials provided to the defendant, accepted by the defendant, under circumstances reasonably notifying the defendant that the plaintiff expected to be paid.
- A resulting trust generally requires proof that the claimant paid all or a definite part of the purchase price at or before acquisition, coupled with an intent that the claimant retain a beneficial interest.
- Attorney’s fees must have a valid legal basis and, when recoverable for only some matters, must be segregated or otherwise limited to compensable work unless an exception applies.

## Conclusion

*Smith v. Deneve* holds that a long-term, unmarried cohabitation relationship—despite shared expenses and some joint financial arrangements—does not, without evidence of financial reliance and guidance, create a fiduciary duty supporting constructive-trust relief over property titled in one partner’s name; the court affirmed summary judgment on the fiduciary-duty theory, affirmed additional rulings in part, reversed the judgment and fee award in part where fact issues or allocation problems remained, and remanded for further proceedings.


Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904 (2009)