Hoard Gainer Industry Co., Ltd v. A. John Knapp--Appeal from 133rd District Court of Harris County

Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 8, 2005.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

_______________

NO. 14-04-01032-CV

_______________

HOARD GAINER INDUSTRY CO., LTD, Appellant

V.

A. JOHN KNAPP, Appellee

On Appeal from the 133rd District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 03-50732

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Hoard Gainer Industry Co., Ltd. (AHoard@) 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.[1]

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.[2] Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

/s/ Richard H. Edelman

Justice

Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed September 8, 2005.

Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Hudson and Seymore.

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

[2] See Bd. of Adjustment of City of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (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 (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).