Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Roe v. McQuitty

Court of Appeals of Texas, Eleventh District

November 7, 2019

JOSEPH B. ROE, JR., Appellant
v.
MIKE MCQUITTY, DAVID DECKER, AND C. BOYD FINCH, Appellees

          On Appeal from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV-52, 446

          Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J. [2]

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          KEITH STRETCHER JUSTICE

         This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of Mike McQuitty, David Decker, and C. Boyd Finch in a suit in which Appellant, Joseph B. Roe, Jr., sought to recover damages for fraudulent transfer in violation of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. See Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 24.005 (West 2015). In two issues, Appellant argues that the trial court erred (1) when it denied his motion for summary judgment and (2) when it granted Appellees' motions for summary judgment. We affirm.

         Background Facts

         On March 22, 2011, Appellant was injured while in the scope of his employment at Lajitas Holdings, LLC. On April 2, 2012, Lajitas Holdings filed a certificate of termination of a domestic entity with the Texas secretary of state, which had the effect of "winding up" the entity.[1] Several months later, on August 24, 2012, Appellant filed suit against Lajitas Holdings to recover damages related to his 2011 injuries. After failing to appear, the trial court entered a default judgment against Lajitas Holdings. The judgment consisted of $352, 512 for actual and compensatory damages and an additional $70, 502.40 in prejudgment interest.

         Appellant filed the present suit seeking to recover assets from Lajitas Holdings, which, he alleges, were fraudulently transferred to Appellees. After litigation began, the parties filed the following motions for summary judgment:

• Appellant filed a traditional motion for summary judgment;
• Appellee Finch filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment;
• Appellees McQuitty and Decker filed a no-evidence motion for partial summary judgment;
• Appellees McQuitty and Decker filed a traditional motion for summary judgment.

         After hearing each summary judgment motion, the trial court denied Appellant's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment in favor of all Appellees. This appeal followed.

         Issues Presented

         In Appellant's two issues on appeal, he argues (1) that his motion for summary judgment should have been granted and (2) that Appellees' motions for summary judgment should have been ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.