Texas

Warning: The following opinion is provided for purposes of discussion only. We have not Shepardized™ this opinion, and do not know the subsequent disposition of this case nor whether the effect of the opinion has been overruled or superceded by other law.

Hoard Gainer Industry Co., Ltd. v. A. John Knapp,
No. 14-04-01032-CV (Tex.App. 09/08/2005)

NO. 14-04-01032-CV

COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTEENTH DISTRICT, HOUSTON

2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 7399

September 8, 2005, Judgment Rendered

September 8, 2005, Memorandum Opinion Filed

NOTICE: [*1] PLEASE CONSULT THE TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR CITATION OF MEMORANDUM OPINIONS AND UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

PRIOR HISTORY: On Appeal from the 133rd District Court. Harris County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. 03-50732. Gollin v. Hoard Gainer Indus. Co., 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 443 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist., Jan. 20, 2005)

JUDGES: Panel consists of Justices Hudson, Edelman and Seymore.

OPINIONBY: Richard H. Edelman

OPINION: MEMORANDUM OPINION

Hoard Gainer Industry Co., Ltd. ("Hoard") appeals a take-nothing summary judgment entered in favor of A. John Knapp on the ground that Knapp received a fraudulent transfer of property from Timothy J. Gollin, against whom Hoard had an unsatisfied judgment in a prior case. However, while this appeal was pending, the First Court of Appeals reversed Hoard's judgment against Gollin in the prior case and rendered judgment that Hoard take nothing against Gollin; and the Texas Supreme Court denied Hoard's petition for review of that decision. n1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n1 See Gollin v. Hoard Gainer Indus. Co., Ltd., 2005 Tex. App. LEXIS 443, No. 01-03-00435-CV, 2005 WL 110374 (Houston [1st Dist.] Jan 20, 2005, pet. denied).

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*2]

Because Hoard's fraudulent transfer claim against Knapp in this case was asserted solely with regard to Hoard's claim and judgment against Gollin in the prior case, and because that judgment has not only been reversed, but a take-nothing judgment entered in its place, it follows logically that that claim and judgment are no longer enforceable against Gollin's assets, and that any transfer of Gollin's assets cannot be fraudulent as to that claim or judgment. Therefore, there is no longer a live controversy whether the transfer at issue in this case was fraudulent with regard to Hoard's claim or judgment against Gollin, and this appeal of the trial court's determination of that issue is moot. n2 Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

n2 See Bd. of Adjustment of City of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427, 45 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 674 (Tex. 2002) (recognizing that a case becomes moot if a live controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the proceedings); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 391-92, 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 348 (Tex. 2000) (holding that the issue of how much settlement credit the defendant was entitled to became moot when the judgment against the defendant was released).

- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - [*3]

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

The legal opinions are a matter of public record (that's how we got them), and as such there can be no defamation for republishing them. Sometimes, however, legal opinions are reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, etc., and we do not discover this fact until somebody points it out to us. As we do not desire to publish inaccurate or outdated information, if a legal opinion has been reversed, vacated, or significantly modified, please advise us of this fact immediately, by fax to (877) 698-0678 or you may also send regular postal correspondence to Riser Adkisson LLP at 1827 Powers Ferry Road, Building One, Suite 200, Atlanta GA 30339.