JOSEPH B. ROE, JR., Appellant
MIKE MCQUITTY, DAVID DECKER, AND C. BOYD FINCH, Appellees
Appeal from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. CV-52, 446
consists of: Bailey, C.J., Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.
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.
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. 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.
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
• 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.
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
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