Fin & Feather Club, by and Through Trustee, Kenneth Parten v. Dale Leander and Don Leander, 2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 12809

Background

Fin & Feather Club (the Club), through trustee Kenneth Parten, sued Dale and Don Leander to recover unpaid club dues, assessments, fines, and related charges tied to ownership shares in the Club.
The case was previously tried (bench) with damages awarded to the Club; this court reversed the damages on appeal and remanded for a new trial limited to damages.
Central factual disputes: the timing and recipients of transfers of Club shares (Dale’s transfer in 1996; Don’s ownership of two shares after 1998; later conveyances to Father and Sons Property, LLC), and whether Dale was personally liable for LLC-held shares.
At retrial the Club called only Parten, who testified from club minutes and offered a summary of amounts allegedly owed by Don (2002–2003) and Dale (2004–2010); many underlying meeting-minute exhibits and deeds were marked but not admitted.
Key evidentiary gaps: no competent proof identifying the principals or ownership interests of Father and Sons Property, LLC; no reliable evidence of the exact date Don delivered the deed conveying his shares (critical to fix the period of liability); no proof piercing the LLC veil or showing Dale’s personal liability for LLC debts.
The trial court granted defendants’ motion for directed verdict for lack of probative evidence on damages and awarded costs and fees to Dale and Don; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Club produced any probative evidence of the amount of damages owed by Don and Dale	Club relied on Parten’s testimony and a summary compiled from club minutes that allocated dues/fines to Don and Dale and on alleged notice of transfers in 2005	Leanders argued the Club failed to prove (1) identity/ownership of Father & Sons Property, LLC principals, (2) date of delivery of Don’s deed, and (3) any basis to hold Dale liable for LLC obligations	No — directed verdict proper: evidence insufficient to raise fact issue on damages for either defendant
Whether evidence established Dale as a principal of Father & Sons Property, LLC and thus personally liable	Club pointed to deposition testimony and prior partition award as indicia that Dale had an interest and was responsible	Leanders said there was no proof Dale was a principal of the LLC or that he could be held personally liable absent veil-piercing evidence	No — less than a scintilla showed Dale was a principal or personally liable; LLC protections apply absent proof of actual fraud
Whether the date of Don’s transfer to the LLC could be fixed for purposes of terminating his liability	Club argued notice in 2005 and the unrecorded/deferred recording meant the Club should treat 2005 as the operative date	Leanders argued the Club offered no evidence of deed delivery date; recording occurred much later (2010) and delivery controls conveyance timing	No — evidence about delivery date was too speculative; less than a scintilla established when Don’s liability ceased
Whether an unrecorded deed is void as to the Club under Property Code §13.001(a) making recording date controlling for creditors	Club contended the unrecorded deed was void as to it and that notice/recording issues made 2005 the effective date for creditor purposes	Leanders noted the Club had no lien or recorded interest and thus §13.001 does not apply; Club had notice in 2005 so statute would not protect subsequent purchasers without notice	Court held §13.001 inapplicable because the Club was not a creditor with a lien; recording rule did not rescue the Club’s evidentiary failures

Key Cases Cited

City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (legal‑sufficiency standard for reviewing evidence)
Exxon Corp. v. Emerald Oil & Gas Co., 348 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. 2011) (presence of some evidence defeats directed verdict)
Jelinek v. Casas, 328 S.W.3d 526 (Tex. 2010) (standards for a “no evidence” challenge)
Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Havner, 953 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1997) (more than a scintilla defined)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (less‑than‑a‑scintilla standard explained)
Shook v. Walden, 368 S.W.3d 604 (Tex. App.—Austin 2012) (veil‑piercing standards for LLCs)