,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals

,.
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Auth., 589 S.W.2d 671, 678 (Tex. 1979).
When the movant fails to meet its burden of proof to conclusively establish it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden does not shift to the non­
movant. MD. Anderson Hosp. & Tumor Ins. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex.
2000).
Argument
Appellee failed to present evidence of Appellant's actual intent, and therefore,
failed to prove a violation of the UFTA. At a minimum, the Appellant's summary
judgment proof created a fact issue regarding intent.
Appellee failed to present evidence of Appellant's actual intent, required
under the UFTA. Further, Appellant filed an Affidavit contained in his Response
to the Motion for Summary Judgment, which further controverts the inadequate
evidence put forth by Appellee. CR. 183-186.
In determining intent under the UFT A, the Court may consider several
factors. 5 Furthermore, the factors related to intent weigh in favor of Appellant.
Appellant's summary judgment proof included Appellant's Affidavit and the
Affidavit of Kelly H. Zinser, Appellant's bankruptcy counsel. The following
statements contained in the Appellant's summary judgment proof establish that
there was no intent to defraud Appellee when Invictus sold the Compliance Depot
Units back to Compliance Depot at same price that they were purchased.
5 Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 24.008.
APPELLANT'S BRIEF
24