,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals
,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals ,_ v - Fifth Court of Appeals
T.R.C.P. 166a(c) Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code§ 21.223(a)(2) STATUTES AND RULES Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 24.008, § 24.009 Texas Finance Code§ 304.002, § 304.003(c)(l), § 304.102 Nature of the Case: STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case arises from a $100,000.00 loan from Appellee to Invictus Partners, LLC ("lnvictus") that resulted in a Judgment of $600,794.33 for Appellee and against Appellant for fraud and violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("UFTA"). CR 192-193. Course of Proceedings: Appellee filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. CR 15. Trial Court: 95th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, Hon. Emily Tobolowsky presiding APPELLANT'S BRIEF 7
Disposition: The trial court granted Appellee's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Judgment found for Appellee and against Appellant on the basis of fraud and violations of the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act codified at Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code§ 24.005. CR 192-193. Statement Regarding Oral Argument Appellant requests oral argument. While the standard of review for an appeal from a summary judgment order is not a difficult burden, undersigned counsel believes that oral argument could aid the Court in its review of this case. ISSUE ONE ISSUES PRESENTED Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Appellant for fraud. ISSUE TWO Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Appellant for under an alter ego theory. ISSUE THREE Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment against Appellant for fraudulent transfer under the UFTA. APPELLANT'S BRIEF 8
- Page 1 and 2: - .. .,_ I Ill • IN THE COURT OF
- Page 3 and 4: APPELLANT: JOSEPH FABIANI APPELLEE:
- Page 5 and 6: ISSUE FOUR Whether the damages awar
- Page 7: Lucas v. Texas Indus., Inc., ......
- Page 11 and 12: The Note was not personally guarant
- Page 13 and 14: transfer."). CR. 192. The Judgment
- Page 15 and 16: ISSUE ONE ARGUMENT Whether the tria
- Page 17 and 18: Argument Appellee's Motion for Part
- Page 19 and 20: • No evidence of any representati
- Page 21 and 22: fraud was erroneous. Limestone Prod
- Page 23 and 24: i I, theory of liability for actual
- Page 25 and 26: ,. City of Houston v. Clear Creek B
- Page 27 and 28: (8) the value of the consideration
- Page 29 and 30: A creditor may also recover a money
- Page 31 and 32: As shown herein, the UFTA claim awa
- Page 33 and 34: The Gentry Affidavit does not conta
- Page 35 and 36: I' applies to judgments on a contra
- Page 38 and 39: II /,> CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This
- Page 40 and 41: ·•
- Page 42: Jr. recover from Defendants Joseph
T.R.C.P. 166a(c)<br />
Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code§ 21.223(a)(2)<br />
STATUTES AND RULES<br />
Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 24.008, § 24.009<br />
Texas Finance Code§ 304.002, § 304.003(c)(l), § 304.102<br />
Nature <strong>of</strong> the Case:<br />
STATEMENT OF THE CASE<br />
This case arises from a $100,000.00 loan from Appellee to Invictus Partners, LLC<br />
("lnvictus") that resulted in a Judgment <strong>of</strong> $600,794.33 for Appellee and against<br />
Appellant for fraud and violations <strong>of</strong> the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act<br />
("UFTA"). CR 192-193.<br />
Course <strong>of</strong> Proceedings:<br />
Appellee filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. CR 15.<br />
Trial <strong>Court</strong>:<br />
95th Judicial District <strong>Court</strong> <strong>of</strong> Dallas County, Texas, Hon. Emily Tobolowsky<br />
presiding<br />
APPELLANT'S BRIEF<br />
7
Change language