Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 8, 2005.
In The
Fourteenth Court of Appeals
_______________
NO. 14-04-01032-CV
_______________
HOARD GAINER INDUSTRY CO., LTD, Appellant
V.
A. JOHN KNAPP, Appellee
On Appeal from the 133rd District Court
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 03-50732
M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Hoard Gainer Industry Co., Ltd. (AHoard@) appeals a take-nothing summary judgment entered in favor of A. John Knapp on the ground that Knapp received a fraudulent transfer of property from Timothy J. Gollin, against whom Hoard had an unsatisfied judgment in a prior case. However, while this appeal was pending, the First Court of Appeals reversed Hoard=s judgment against Gollin in the prior case and rendered judgment that Hoard take nothing against Gollin; and the Texas Supreme Court denied Hoard=s petition for review of that decision.[1]
Because Hoard=s fraudulent transfer claim against Knapp in this case was asserted solely with regard to Hoard=s claim and judgment against Gollin in the prior case, and because that judgment has not only been reversed, but a take-nothing judgment entered in its place, it follows logically that that claim and judgment are no longer enforceable against Gollin=s assets, and that any transfer of Gollin=s assets cannot be fraudulent as to that claim or judgment. Therefore, there is no longer a live controversy whether the transfer at issue in this case was fraudulent with regard to Hoard=s claim or judgment against Gollin, and this appeal of the trial court=s determination of that issue is moot.[2] Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
/s/ Richard H. Edelman
Justice
Judgment rendered and Memorandum Opinion filed September 8, 2005.
Panel consists of Justices Edelman, Hudson and Seymore.
[1] See Gollin v. Hoard Gainer Indus. Co., Ltd., No. 01‑03‑00435‑CV, 2005 WL 110374 (Houston [1st Dist.] Jan 20, 2005, pet. denied).
[2] See Bd. of Adjustment of City of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 427 (Tex. 2002) (recognizing that a case becomes moot if a live controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the proceedings); Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378, 391-92 (Tex. 2000) (holding that the issue of how much settlement credit the defendant was entitled to became moot when the judgment against the defendant was released).