,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals

the alter ego doctrine. Lucas v. Texas Indus., Inc., 696 S.W.2d 372, 376 (Tex.
1984).
An attempt to pierce the corporate veil is not, of itself, a substantive cause
of action. Instead, it is a means of imposing liability in connection with an
underlying cause of action such as a tort or breach of contract. Phillips v. United
Heritage Corp., 319 S.W.3d 156, 158 (Tex. App.--Waco 2010, no pet.); Wilson v.
Davis, 305 S.WJd 57, 68 (Tex. App.-Houston 2009, no pet.); Gallagher v.
Bintliff, 740 S.W.2d 118, 119 (Tex. App.-Austin 1987, writ denied); Farr v. Sun
World Sav. Ass'n, 810 S.W.2d 294, 297 (Tex. App.--El Paso 1991, no writ); see
Cox v. Southern Garrett, L.L.C., 245 S.W.3d 574, 582 (Tex. App.-Houston 2007,
no pet.)(without underlying cause of action creating corporate liability, evidence
of abuse of corporate form is immaterial).
Argument
Because Appellee failed to pled or prove an actual fraud, Appellee cannot prevail
under the alter ego doctrine.
To pierce the corporate veil, Appellee must necessarily prove an actual
fraud. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 21.223(b ). As shown hereinabove, Appellee failed
to plead or prove an actual fraud. The Appellee's Summary Judgment Motion
only contained a conclusory statement that there was actual fraud and Appellant
should be personally liable. The Motion and the evidence attached thereto do not
prove the required elements of actual fraud under a traditional summary judgment
motion standard. Therefore, the finding against Appellant under an alter ego
APPELLANT'S BRIEF 21