UFTA Actual Intent Fact Issue | Rodriguez v. Torres (2025)

Rodriguez v. Torres, 13-25-00509-CV, July 16, 2026.

On appeal from 445th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Synopsis

Summary judgment is not proper on a UFTA actual-intent claim under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1) when the creditor produces more than a scintilla of evidence of multiple badges of fraud. In Rodriguez v. Torres, the Thirteenth Court of Appeals held that evidence of a post-divorce transfer to the debtor’s daughter, after an abstract of judgment was recorded, involving substantially all Texas assets, followed by a later transfer without compensation, raised a genuine issue of material fact and required reversal.

Relevance to Family Law

This opinion matters in family law because post-decree collection disputes frequently become transfer disputes. When one spouse obtains a money judgment in a divorce, reimbursement case, sanctions order, attorney’s fee award, or tort claim tried with the divorce, the losing spouse may attempt to move real property to relatives or third parties after judgment. Rodriguez confirms that family-law creditors can survive traditional and no-evidence summary judgment by building a record around UFTA badges of fraud, particularly where the transfer occurs after rendition of the decree, after recordation of an abstract of judgment, and to an insider. For litigators handling divorce property enforcement, turnover-style collection strategy, or post-judgment discovery, this case is a useful roadmap for both pleading and proof.

Case Summary

Fact Summary

The dispute arose out of a divorce between Alma Rodriguez and Levi Medina. After a jury trial, the divorce decree awarded Rodriguez $115,000 in damages against Medina on an intentional-infliction claim. The decree also identified two Brownsville parcels as Medina’s separate property.

Rodriguez later filed suit alleging that, after the divorce decree, Medina transferred those two parcels to his daughter, Judy Anne Torres, by gift deed. Rodriguez alleged that before those transfers she had recorded an abstract of judgment in Cameron County, thereby fixing a judgment lien against nonexempt real property. She sought declaratory and enforcement relief and later amended to assert conspiracy and fraudulent-transfer claims under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act.

Both Medina and Torres moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment. They argued, among other things, that Rodriguez could not prove actual fraudulent intent and that res judicata barred the claims because the real estate had been addressed in the divorce. In response, Rodriguez presented evidence that the transfers were made after the decree, after recordation of the abstract, to Medina’s daughter, and that after suit was filed Torres transferred the properties to a church in Mexico without compensation. Rodriguez also offered evidence that Medina lived in Mexico and that the Brownsville parcels were his only assets in Texas and the United States.

The trial court granted summary judgment and dismissed Rodriguez’s claims. The court of appeals reversed and remanded.

Issues Decided

• Whether summary judgment was proper on Rodriguez’s UFTA claim under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1).
• Whether the summary-judgment record raised a genuine issue of material fact on actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud through recognized badges of fraud.
• Whether res judicata barred Rodriguez’s fraudulent-transfer claims arising from post-decree transfers of property addressed in the divorce decree.

Rules Applied

The court relied principally on the following authorities:

• Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1), which makes a transfer fraudulent as to a creditor if made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud.
• Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.005(b), which lists nonexclusive badges of fraud, including:
• transfer to an insider;
• transfer after suit or threat of suit;
• transfer of substantially all assets;
• lack of reasonably equivalent value;
• insolvency;
• concealment or retention of control.
• Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.008, governing remedies including avoidance of transfer and levy on transferred assets after judgment.
• The standard for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 166a.
• The “more than a scintilla” standard described in cases such as Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, and Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway.
• The Texas Supreme Court’s discussion of UFTA badges of fraud in Janvey v. GMAG, L.L.C. and UFTA’s purpose in KCM Financial LLC v. Bradshaw.
• Finality principles from Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp. and G & H Towing Co. v. Magee.

Application

The court treated the case as a straightforward summary-judgment problem: did Rodriguez produce enough evidence to create a fact issue on actual intent under § 24.005(a)(1)? It concluded that she did.

What mattered was not direct proof of intent, which is rare in fraudulent-transfer litigation, but circumstantial evidence corresponding to several statutory badges of fraud. The court focused on the fact that the transfers were made to an insider—Medina’s daughter. It also considered timing: the transfers occurred after the divorce decree created a substantial debt and after Rodriguez recorded an abstract of judgment. That chronology supported an inference that the transfers were designed to obstruct collection rather than accomplish some ordinary estate-planning purpose.

The court also gave weight to the evidence that the Brownsville parcels represented substantially all of Medina’s Texas assets, especially because Rodriguez averred that Medina resided in Mexico and that these properties were his only assets in Texas and the United States. That evidence tends to show the transfer put reachable assets beyond a Texas judgment creditor’s grasp. The subsequent conveyance by Torres to a church in Mexico without compensation further strengthened the inference of fraudulent intent. Even if appellees denied knowledge or improper motive, those denials did not eliminate the competing inferences created by the surrounding circumstances.

In other words, the court did not require Rodriguez to conclusively prove fraudulent intent at the summary-judgment stage. She needed only more than a scintilla of evidence from which reasonable factfinders could infer actual intent. Because the record reflected multiple badges of fraud operating together, summary judgment was improper.

The res judicata argument also failed in substance because the fraudulent-transfer claims were based on post-decree conduct. The divorce determined characterization and division issues; it did not adjudicate whether later transfers were undertaken to defeat collection of the judgment awarded in that decree. Those were distinct operative facts.

Holding

The court held that summary judgment was improper on the UFTA actual-intent claim under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 24.005(a)(1) because Rodriguez produced more than a scintilla of evidence of actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud. The court emphasized that evidence of multiple badges of fraud—including transfer to an insider, transfer after the judgment lien was recorded, transfer of substantially all Texas assets, and a later transfer without compensation—created a genuine issue of material fact.

The court also rejected dismissal based on res judicata. A fraudulent-transfer claim premised on post-judgment or post-decree conveyances is not barred merely because the property itself was addressed in the divorce proceeding. The complained-of conduct was the later transfer designed to obstruct collection, not the decree’s original property adjudication.

Accordingly, the court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Practical Application

For family-law litigators, Rodriguez is most useful in enforcement-heavy cases where the decree awards money, confirms title, or creates an equalization obligation and the debtor spouse promptly moves assets to relatives. The lesson is to frame the case as a post-judgment creditor action and to build the summary-judgment record around badges of fraud rather than waiting for an admission of bad intent that will never come.

In divorce litigation, this comes up most often after awards of attorney’s fees, sanctions, reimbursement, economic contribution analogues in older cases, tort damages joined to the divorce, or equalization judgments. If the debtor spouse deeds real property to an adult child, sibling, new partner, trust, or affiliated entity after rendition, after notice of judgment, or after recordation of an abstract, counsel should immediately evaluate a UFTA claim. The same is true when the transferee then moves the asset again, particularly offshore or across the border, or conveys it for no consideration. Secondary transfers often sharpen the inference of fraudulent purpose.

For the creditor side, Rodriguez shows the importance of simple but disciplined proof: certified property records, the divorce decree, the abstract of judgment, deed chronology, evidence of familial relationship, valuation evidence, and affidavits establishing that the transferred assets constituted most or all reachable property. For the defense side, the case is a warning that generic denials—no concealment, no knowledge, no retention of possession—will not carry summary judgment if the claimant can marshal several objective badges of fraud. If defending such a transfer, counsel should be prepared with legitimate transactional reasons, valuation support, evidence of fair consideration, and a record negating insolvency or asset depletion.

This opinion also has strategic implications before judgment. If you anticipate collection resistance, abstract the judgment promptly, conduct asset tracing early, and consider temporary injunctive relief under UFTA where facts justify it. In family cases with international ties, especially where one spouse resides outside the United States, counsel should assume that delay increases the risk of a second transfer and a more complex enforcement landscape.

Checklists

Building a UFTA Claim After a Divorce Judgment

• Obtain the signed divorce decree and identify every monetary award that makes your client a creditor.
• Record an abstract of judgment promptly in every county where the debtor may own real property.
• Pull deed records before and after rendition of judgment to establish transfer timing.
• Identify whether the transferee is an insider, including a child, parent, sibling, spouse, related entity, or trusted affiliate.
• Determine whether the transfer involved all or substantially all nonexempt Texas assets.
• Investigate whether the debtor resides outside Texas or outside the United States.
• Look for secondary transfers, especially no-consideration transfers or transfers to entities difficult to reach.
• Plead § 24.005(a)(1) specifically and tie the facts to the statutory badges of fraud.
• Request remedies under § 24.008, including avoidance, injunction, and levy on transferred assets.

Evidence to Defeat No-Evidence Summary Judgment

• Attach the abstract of judgment and proof of recordation.
• Attach certified copies of relevant deeds and property records.
• Establish the insider relationship with deposition excerpts, admissions, or public records.
• Offer affidavit testimony regarding the debtor’s known asset base and location of assets.
• Show that the transfer occurred shortly after the debt was incurred or judgment was entered.
• Present evidence that the transferee gave no consideration or less than reasonably equivalent value.
• Include evidence of later transfers that suggest continued efforts to place assets beyond reach.
• Frame the evidence cumulatively; multiple badges of fraud together are often the decisive point.

Protecting the Record in Family-Law Enforcement Cases

• Separate enforcement claims from original property-division disputes in your briefing.
• Explain why the operative facts are post-decree and therefore not barred by res judicata.
• Distinguish title adjudication in the divorce from later conduct undertaken to defeat collection.
• If the property was confirmed as separate property, emphasize that separate ownership does not immunize later fraudulent transfers.
• Preserve requests for declaratory relief, avoidance, injunction, execution, fees, and any ancillary remedies supported by statute.

Defense Checklist for a Transferee or Debtor

• Document legitimate, non-collection-related reasons for the transfer.
• Produce evidence of reasonably equivalent value, if any was paid.
• Show that the debtor retained sufficient assets after the transfer.
• Develop proof that the transfer was not concealed and occurred in ordinary course.
• Address insolvency and asset-depletion issues directly with competent evidence.
• Be prepared to confront timing evidence if the transfer followed a decree, fee award, or abstract of judgment.
• Avoid relying solely on the argument that the property was separate property in the divorce; that does not answer a UFTA claim.
• Evaluate early whether a fact issue exists and whether summary judgment is realistically defensible.

Family-Law Prevention Checklist Before the Transfer Happens

• Advise clients receiving money awards to abstract the judgment immediately.
• Conduct post-judgment discovery without delay.
• Monitor county property records for deeds filed after rendition.
• Consider lis pendens or injunctive relief where legally appropriate and strategically sound.
• In cases involving international residence or cross-border movement, intensify early asset tracing.
• Build decree language that clearly identifies the monetary obligation and prevailing-party fee entitlement for later enforcement.

Citation

Rodriguez v. Torres, No. 13-25-00509-CV, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2026 WL ___ (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg July 16, 2026, no pet. h.).

Full Opinion

Read the full opinion here

~~94462262-afc5-4231-8607-8246d7c3a3d8~~