Fercan Kalkan, TXMV2017, LLC and ENKB-Monticello, LLC v. Pablo Salamanca, 14-22-00505-CV

In Nov. 2017 Pablo Salamanca, a Mira Vista Apartments security guard, was shot and later sued the apartment owner for negligence seeking monetary damages.
Vista 2016, LLC (owned by Fercan Kalkan) transferred the Mira Vista property to TXMV 2017, LLC (also controlled by Kalkan) for $10 about two months after the shooting.
In Mar. 2020 TXMV took a $17 million loan; most loan proceeds were quickly moved to Kalkan (personal and investment accounts) and to ENKB‑Monticello, LLC (Kalkan‑controlled), leaving TXMV heavily encumbered.
Salamanca sued Kalkan, TXMV, and ENKB under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA) in June 2022 and sought a temporary injunction freezing transfers and encumbrances of specified assets.
After a two‑day hearing the trial court found a pattern of transfers, effective insolvency/judgment‑proofing, and imminent risk of dissipation; it granted a temporary injunction prohibiting transfers/encumbrances and preserving assets and evidence.
Appellants appealed interlocutorily, challenging (1) Salamanca’s standing as a TUFTA creditor, (2) the existence of imminent/irreparable harm, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence on badges of fraud.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Salamanca a “creditor” under TUFTA?	Salamanca has a TUFTA “claim” because he filed a pending tort suit seeking damages.	He lacks standing because his claim is unliquidated and not reduced to judgment.	Salamanca is a creditor; TUFTA’s definition of "claim" includes pending, unliquidated tort claims.
Did plaintiff prove imminent, irreparable harm to justify a temporary injunction?	Continued transfers and encumbrances would render TXMV insolvent/judgment‑proof, leaving monetary relief inadequate.	Salamanca has an adequate remedy at law through his personal‑injury suit.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence supported imminent irreparable harm due to insolvency risk.
Was there evidence of badges of fraud showing actual intent?	Transfers occurred after suit/knowledge of claim, involved substantially all assets, and left TXMV effectively insolvent.	Transfers were legitimate business practice (recycling refinance proceeds); no intent to defraud creditors.	Sufficient circumstantial evidence (multiple badges: suit prior to transfers, transfer of substantially all assets, insolvency after transfers) supported the injunction.

Butnaru v. Ford Motor Co., 84 S.W.3d 198 (Tex. 2002) (standard and purpose of temporary injunctions and abuse‑of‑discretion review)
KCM Fin. LLC v. Bradshaw, 457 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. 2015) (TUFTA’s purpose to protect creditors)
Janvey v. Golf Channel, Inc., 487 S.W.3d 560 (Tex. 2016) (fraudulent transfers may be avoided to satisfy creditors)
Hollins v. Rapid Transit Lines, Inc., 440 S.W.2d 57 (Tex. 1969) (tort claimants may challenge alleged fraudulent conveyances)
Davis v. Huey, 571 S.W.2d 859 (Tex. 1978) (appellate scope in reviewing injunctions; do not reach merits)
Tel. Equip. Network, Inc. v. TA/Westchase Place, Ltd., 80 S.W.3d 601 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002) (insolvency can render legal remedy inadequate)
Tex. Black Iron, Inc. v. Arawak Energy Int’l, Ltd., 527 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017) (supporting injunction where debtor may become judgment‑proof)