Challenger Gamin Solutions,Inc. & the Accent Group, Inc. v. Karen Earp
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 6058
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Challenger sued Karen Earp under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (UFTA) after Earp’s ex-husband defaulted on a Challenger loan and transferred settlement proceeds to Earp.
- Earp’s ex-husband was designated as a responsible third party; the jury allocated 50% liability to Earp and 50% to her ex-husband, resulting in a $31,000 judgment against Earp.
- The central issue is whether the proportionate responsibility statute (chapter 33) applies to an UFTA claim; the court held that it does not.
- UFTA provides equitable relief and a money judgment but does not incorporate a fault-allocation scheme; applying chapter 33 would conflict with UFTA’s liability structure.
- The court resolved the issue by holding that the proportionate responsibility statute does not apply to UFTA claims and modified the judgment to $62,000 against Earp, affirming as modified.
- The record was partially reporter’s and the trial court’s proceedings included designating the ex-husband as a responsible third party and submitting a percentage-of-responsibility question to the jury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the proportionate responsibility statute apply to a UFTA claim? | Challenger—Yes, to apportion fault. | Earp—Not clearly argued here, but implied no fault allocation under UFTA. | No; statute does not apply to UFTA claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Southwest Bank v. Information Support Concepts, Inc., 149 S.W.3d 104 (Tex. 2004) (UCC article 3 fault allocation; comprehensive liability scheme)
- JCW Electronics, Inc. v. Garza, 257 S.W.3d 701 (Tex. 2008) (UCC article 2 warranty; fault allocation applies to implied warranties in certain contexts)
- Mack v. Newton, 737 F.2d 1343 (5th Cir. 1984) (UFTA predecessor; discusses equitable relief and applicability to transfers)