Austin Capital Collision, LLC// Barbara Pampalone v. Barbara Pampalone// Cross-Appellee, Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided December 1, 2015·No. 03-15-00447-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 03-15-00447-CV 8040945 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 12/1/2015 4:40:44 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK NO. 03-15-00447-CV

In the Court of Appeals FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS For the Third Judicial District of Texas AUSTIN, TEXAS at Austin 12/1/2015 4:40:44 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk BARBARA PAMPALONE, Cross-Appellant

v.

ERIC HINOJOSA, Cross-Appellee

On Appeal from the 419th Judicial District Court Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1-GN-14-003207

AMENDED CROSS-APPELLANT’S BRIEF

MCGINNIS, LOCHRIDGE & KILGORE, L.L.P. Nelia J. Robbi State Bar No. 24052296 Joe Lea State Bar No. 24013257 Stephanie N. Duff-O’Bryan State Bar No. 24087448 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 495-6000 (512) 495-6093 FAX nrobbi@mcginnislaw.com

ATTORNEYS FOR BARBARA PAMPALONE

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Parties to the Trial Courts Judgment

Plaintiff: Barbara Pampalone

Defendants: Austin Capital Collision, LLC Eric Hinojosa

Names and Addresses of Trial and Appellate Counsel

Counsel for Plaintiff: Nelia J. Robbi nrobbi@mcginnislaw.com Joe Lea jlea@mcginnislaw.com Stephanie N. Duff-O’Bryan sduffobryan@mcginnislaw.com 600 Congress Avenue, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 495-6000 (512) 495-6093 FAX

Counsel for Michael Truesdale Defendants: mike@truesdalelaw.com 801 West Avenue, Suite 201 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 482-8671 (866)-847-8719 FAX

Adam Pugh apugh@slaterpugh.com 8400 N. Mopac Expressway, Suite 100 Austin, Texas 78759 (512) 472-2431 (512) 472-0432 FAX

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ...................................................................... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................... iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. vi

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT ......................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ................................................................................... 2

ISSUE PRESENTED .......................................................................................................... 2

STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3

A. Overview and the parties. ......................................................................................... 3

B. The business: Capital Collision. ............................................................................... 5

C. The loan. ................................................................................................................... 5

D. The payments: 94 monthly payments over 8 years. ................................................. 7

E. The fraud. ................................................................................................................. 8

1. Eric Hinojosa wholly owned and controlled Capital Collision. .................... 9

2. Mr. Hinojosa formed a new company, also called Capital Collision, which he also wholly owned and controlled. ............................... 9

3. After his new company took over the business of the old company, Mr. Hinojosa terminated the old company. ................................ 10

4. Mr. Hinojosa did not tell Dr. Pampalone that he had terminated the company she had loaned money to........................................................ 10

5. Mr. Hinojosa terminated the old company to “close old debt,” but continued to send and receive correspondence related to the debt using the old company’s address. ........................................................ 11

iii 6. Unbeknownst to Dr. Pampalone, Mr. Hinojosa transferred payments on the loan to an account held in the name of the old company that he had terminated and funded that account with money from the new company and his own personal funds. ...................... 12

7. Three years after terminating the company to which Dr. Pampalone had made the loan, Mr. Hinojosa stopped paying. ................... 13

F. The litigation. ......................................................................................................... 13

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 14

ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................... 17

A. De Novo Standard of Review ................................................................................. 17

B. The trial court judgment should be reformed to impose liability on Eric Hinojosa because the trial court erred in failing to impose alter ego liability based on its factual findings and the undisputed evidence. ...................... 17

1. The trial court correctly found that Eric Hinojosa completely owned and controlled both companies during the relevant time periods. ........................................................................................................ 20

2. The trial court correctly found that Eric Hinojosa commingled personal and corporate assets and obligations............................................. 22

3. Limiting liability would work an injustice because it is undisputed that Eric Hinojosa emptied the original debtor to make a new company without telling anyone. ............................................ 25

4. The requirement of fraud is established by the trial court’s findings and the undisputed evidence at trial because the findings and undisputed evidence established as a matter of law (a) a fraudulent transfer under Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 24.006(a), and (b) that Eric Hinojosa intentionally used the companies to deceive his creditor for his personal benefit. ........................ 27

a. Eric Hinojosa effected a fraudulent transfer under Section 24.006 of the Texas Business and Commerce Code ........................ 28

b. Eric Hinojosa used the companies to deceive his creditor for his personal benefit ..................................................................... 30

C. The proper remedy is to reform and render the judgment. ..................................... 32

iv CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 33

PRAYER ........................................................................................................................... 33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... 35

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ................................................................................ 36

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 37

v INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases

Castleberry v. Branscrum, 721 S.W.2d 270 (Tex. 1986) ..................... 18, 19, 28, 30

Dick’s Last Resort of West End, Inc. v. Market/Ross, Ltd., 273 S.W.3d 905 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, pet. denied) ..........................................................................30

Dodd v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Austin Capital Collision, LLC// Barbara Pampalone v. Barbara Pampalone// Cross-Appellee, Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa, (Tex. Ct. App. 2015).

Austin Capital Collision, LLC// Barbara Pampalone v. Barbara Pampalone// Cross-Appellee, Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa (Austin Capital Collision, LLC// Barbara Pampalone v. Barbara Pampalone// Cross-Appellee, Austin Capital Collision, LLC and Eric Hinojosa) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

SSP Partners v. Gladstrong Investments (USA) Corp.
275 S.W.3d 444 (Texas Supreme Court, 2008)
Spring Street Prt - IV, L.P. v. Douglas Lam
730 F.3d 427 (Fifth Circuit, 2013)
Mancorp, Inc. v. CULPEPPEER
802 S.W.2d 226 (Texas Supreme Court, 1990)
Hideca Petroleum Corp. v. Tampimex Oil International, Ltd.
740 S.W.2d 838 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Schlueter v. Carey
112 S.W.3d 164 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2003)
Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc. v. Serv-Tech, Inc.
879 S.W.2d 89 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1994)
Harco Energy, Inc. v. Re-Entry People, Inc.
23 S.W.3d 389 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2000)
Cappuccitti v. Gulf Industrial Products, Inc.
222 S.W.3d 468 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
Dick's Last Resort of the West End, Inc. v. Market/Ross, Ltd.
273 S.W.3d 905 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Remington Arms Co., Inc. v. Luna
966 S.W.2d 641 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1998)
Castleberry v. Branscum
721 S.W.2d 270 (Texas Supreme Court, 1986)
Farr v. Sun World Savings Association
810 S.W.2d 294 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991)
Michael Dodd and 3D Global Solutions, Inc. v. Brian J. Savino
426 S.W.3d 275 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2014)
Phillips v. Carlton Energy Group, LLC
475 S.W.3d 265 (Texas Supreme Court, 2015)