FT - Hoard Gainer Industry Co v. Knapp (9/8/2005)

[Riser Adkisson LLP]

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FOR CITATION OF MEMORANDUM OPINIONS AND UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.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