X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:The appellants, Herbert and Amy Goebel, as next friends and parents of Katie and Brent Goebel, appealed a summary judgment in favor of the appellee, William Brandley, claiming the trial court erred in concluding Amy’s purchase of U.S. Savings Bonds Series EE in her children’s names, through payroll deductions, was a fraudulent transfer under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act. HOLDING:Because the parties do not dispute that Amy purchased the savings bonds with her wages, but Brandley failed to establish the wages were “assets” as defined under TUFTA, the court reverses the judgment of the trial court and renders judgment in favor of the Goebels. On appeal, the Goebels contend that the trial court erred in granting Brandley’s summary judgment motion, because Amy purchased the savings bonds with her wages prior to receipt of those wages, and she began participating in the payroll deduction program several years before Brandley’s judgment. They also argue that Amy never owned the savings bonds because all of the bonds were purchased in the name of her children. Consequently, according to the Goebels, there was no transfer of assets as defined under TUFTA and, therefore, they argue that Katie and Brent cannot be liable to Brandley for damages under that statute. The court finds that Brandley has failed to establish that Amy’s wages lost their exempt character for purposes of TUFTA merely because she had the ability to end the payroll deduction program. But the court states that it cannot conclude, as Brandley advocates, that Amy’s voluntary participation – beginning several years prior to Brandley’s judgment – in a payroll deduction program to purchase savings bonds in her children’s names, with wages she did not receive, qualifies as a transfer of assets under TUFTA. Therefore, the court sustains the Goebels’ first issue and holds that Amy’s wages deducted under the savings bond payroll deduction program were exempt property and, therefore, not assets as defined under TUFTA. Consequently, the court holds that Katie and Brent cannot be liable to Brandley for damages under TUFTA, and, therefore, the court sustains the Goebels’ second issue. OPINION:Eva M. Guzman, J.; Edelman, Seymore, and Guzman., JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.