Austin Capital Collision, LLC// Barbara Pampalone v. Barbara Pampalone// Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa, 03-15-00447-CV

Background

Barbara Pampalone (lender) alleged she loaned $80,000 (unwritten) to Capital Collision (a general partnership formed by Hinojosa and Erik Pampalone) in 2005; she made payments of $50,000 and $30,000 and mortgaged her home to fund the loan.
The partnership (GP) made regular automated payments to Pampalone from accounts referencing "Capital Collision" and "Eric A Hinojosa" for several years; payments totaled 94 regular payments plus a $6,000 final payment.
In 2009–2010, Hinojosa formed Austin Capital Collision, LLC (ACC), used the same assumed name, employees, email/address, and continued the same business; bank records show transfers between GP and ACC-related accounts and continued payments to Pampalone through 2013.
Pampalone sued ACC and Hinojosa for breach of contract and attorney’s fees, alleging she fully performed and GP/ACC partially performed; parties stipulated damages ($56,758.68) and pretrial attorney’s fees; bench trial resulted in judgment against ACC for damages and attorney’s fees, but not against Hinojosa individually.
Trial court found the oral loan enforceable under the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds and found ACC assumed and partially performed the loan; it discredited Hinojosa’s testimony.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the oral $80,000 loan is barred by statute of frauds or enforceable by partial/full performance	Pampalone: she fully performed (funded loan) and GP/ACC partially performed (made payments, emails, amortization schedule) so statute of frauds is inapplicable	ACC: oral agreement unwritten; payments not "unequivocally referable" to loan; prior California suit suggests payments were for a different obligation	Court: Affirmed—there is legally sufficient evidence of Pampalone’s full performance and GP/ACC’s partial performance; statute of frauds exception applies.
Whether ACC assumed GP’s loan liability and partially performed after formation	Pampalone: ACC continued GP’s business, accepted benefits, continued payments, and communicated about the loan (emails, transfers)	ACC: payments came from GP-named accounts, not ACC; no clear written assumption; transfers not tied to loan	Court: Affirmed—evidence (continued business identity, bank transfers, emails, payments) supports assumption and partial performance by ACC.
Whether attorney’s fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §38.001 are recoverable	Pampalone: prevailing on contract claim entitles her to fees	ACC: if contract unenforceable, fees cannot stand	Court: Fees upheld because contract enforceable; award within expedited-action limits.
Whether Hinojosa is individually liable under alter-ego (piercing corporate veil)	Pampalone: Hinojosa dominated entities, commingled/emptied assets, so veil should be pierced to hold him personally liable	Hinojosa/ACC: no findings/support showing unity, injustice, or actual fraud; trial court did not find these elements	Court: Affirmed—trial court did not make or enter findings supporting alter-ego; Pampalone failed to request additional findings and did not carry burden of proof, so no individual liability.

Key Cases Cited

Bratcher v. Dozier, 346 S.W.2d 795 (Tex. 1961) (statute of frauds question reviewed as law).
City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal-sufficiency standard and appellate review of fact findings).
National Prop. Holdings, L.P. v. Westergren, 453 S.W.3d 419 (Tex. 2015) (partial-performance exception requires performance "unequivocally referable" to the oral agreement).
Berryman’s S. Fork, Inc. v. J. Baxter Brinkmann Int’l Corp., 418 S.W.3d 172 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (equitable enforcement where denial would amount to virtual fraud; performance must corroborate existence/terms).
Exxon Corp. v. Breezevale Ltd., 82 S.W.3d 429 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2002) (discussion of partial-performance exception and reliance/detriment test).
Mancorp., Inc. v. Culpepper, 802 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1990) (elements for piercing corporate veil/alter ego).