# Exec. Workspace–ABC–Preston Rd., LLC v. Reserve Capital–Preston Grove SPE, LLC

Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-0074

**Exec. Workspace–ABC–Preston Rd., LLC v. Reserve Capital–Preston Grove SPE, LLC, No. 25-0074, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: The Court denied rehearing, and Justice Young wrote that the Court has decided too few cases under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), leaving lower courts to rely on Fifth Circuit "Erie guesses," but that this fact-intensive case is a poor vehicle for the question of whether terminating a contractual right to future payments can be a fraudulent "transfer" of an "asset."**

Practice areas: business organizations

## Key issues

- The Court denied rehearing, and Justice Young wrote that the Court has decided too few cases under the Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (TUFTA), leaving lower courts to rely on Fifth Circuit "Erie guesses," but that this fact-intensive case is a poor vehicle for the question of whether terminating a contractual right to future payments can be a fraudulent "transfer" of an "asset."
- He urged litigants to bring TUFTA cases of clear jurisprudential importance and said he expects the Court to be receptive.

## Factual History
The statement concerns a petition by several Executive Workspace entities against Reserve Capital-Preston Grove SPE, LLC raising a TUFTA question about terminating a contractual right to future payments (Young, J., statement, PDF pp. 1-3).

## Procedural History
The Fifth Court of Appeals resolved the questions largely by relying on federal Erie guesses and a patchwork of Texas court-of-appeals decisions; the Court denied the petition for review and on April 10, 2026 denied rehearing, with Justice Young's statement respecting the denial (Young, J., statement, PDF pp. 1-3).

## Issues Presented
Whether the termination of a contractual right to future payments may constitute a fraudulent "transfer" of an "asset" under TUFTA (Young, J., statement, PDF p. 2).

## Legal Arguments
The statement does not summarize the parties' arguments; it notes the litigants in this Court relied on decisions from courts across the country (Young, J., statement, PDF p. 2).

## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case
Not applicable—the petition was denied.

## Practice Area Tags
business-organizations

## Procedural Posture/Vehicle
Motion for rehearing of the denial of a petition for review, denied, with a statement (Young, J., statement, PDF p. 1).

## Amicus Involvement
None noted

## Court's Reasoning
By Justice Young's count only eleven of the Court's opinions even mention TUFTA and about twenty Fifth Circuit cases have arisen since the Court last addressed it in 2019, so guidance is overdue (PDF pp. 1-2). Still, the Court's usual practice is to grant review when it will advance the State's jurisprudence as a whole, and because this case arises from a distinctive, highly fact-intensive record it may not generate broadly applicable guidance (PDF p. 2).

## Disposition
Motion for rehearing denied.

## Vote Breakdown
Statement of Justice Young respecting the denial of rehearing (Young, J., statement, PDF p. 1).

---
Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-0074. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.