Qui Phuoc Ho and Tong Ho v. MacArthur Ranch, LLC
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 1199
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- MacArthur Ranch sued for breach and later alleged fraudulent transfers under TUFTA after debtors transferred two houses to relatives.
- Thirteen days before a summary judgment hearing, Toan Ho deeded the Princess house to Qui Phuoc Ho and Mau Thi Nguyen; the Clint house was deeded to Tong Ho one day before the hearing.
- The trial court granted summary judgment against debtors for $150,000 plus fees; MacArthur then pursued TUFTA claims against appellants.
- Deemed admissions by appellants, admitted through the order and statements, supported intent to hinder, delay, or defraud MacArthur Ranch.
- The trial court awarded a $180,171 judgment and injunctions, then MacArthur appealed seeking reversal or remand for new trial.
- Appellants challenged the sufficiency of evidence, the joint-and-several liability, and joinder of a necessary party; the court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TUFTA 24.005(a)(1) evidence supports fraudulent intent | Ho/Ho argue insufficiency of proof of intent. | MacArthur Ranch argues admissions and badges show intent to defraud. | Evidence supports a finding of actual intent under 24.005(a)(1). |
| Whether TUFTA 24.006 value and asset adequacy were proven | MacArthur asserts both transfers left debtors insolvent with inadequate value. | Appellants contend no proven fair market value supports damages. | Fair market value evidence is legally insufficient; this taints damages calculation. |
| Whether joint and several liability was appropriate | MacArthur argues joint liability for full debt amount is appropriate. | Appellants argue liability should be tied to value of each asset transferred to each transferee. | Joint-and-several liability reversed because liability must be tied to asset value per transferee. |
| Whether the Princess and Clint houses constituted substantially all assets | MacArthur contends transfers left debtors without assets. | Appellants challenge whether these were substantial assets. | Not explicitly resolved due to insufficient value proof; remand on liability and damages. |
| Whether Mau Thi Nguyen should have been joined as a party | Nguyen is a necessary party given transfers and interests. | Joinder not addressed due to remand for new trial. | Not addressed on the merits; remand procedure preserved. |
Key Cases Cited
- Corpus v. Arriaga, 294 S.W.3d 629 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (TUFTA damages framework and standards; credibility)
- Croucher v. Croucher, 660 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. 1983) (no-evidence standard framework)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (no-evidence standard and sufficiency review)
- Dow Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237 (Tex. 2001) (evidence weighing and credibility for sufficiency)
- Mladenka v. Mladenka, 130 S.W.3d 397 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (badges of fraud in TUFTA context)
- Coastal Transp. Co., Inc. v. Crown Cent. Petroleum Corp., 136 S.W.3d 227 (Tex. 2004) (limits on expert testimony reliability; face-of-record challenges)
- Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Editorial Caballero, S.A. de C.V., 202 S.W.3d 250 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2006) (remand when damages uncertain; guidance for new trial)