MEMORANDUM OPINION
Eduardo Rodriguez, United States Bankruptcy Judge
Catherine Stone Curtis, the chapter 7 Trustee, is seeking to set aside and recover alleged preferential fraudulent transfers from defendants Herbert R. Scurlock, III, Trustee of the Chapman Family Trust, Shari Ann Moore, Tari A. Garcia, Tami J. Albreksten, Thomas T. Scurlock and Lori M. Martin. Defendants collectively filed their motion and related supplement to their motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion and related supplement motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
The Court finds that both under Texas law and § 101(45) of the Bankruptcy Code, Defendants are not relatives of the Debtor, and thus do not qualify as statutory per se insiders, but nevertheless qualify as "non-statutory insiders" under Counts I and V of the Amended Complaint. With respect to Counts II and IV, this Court finds that Plaintiff sufficiently pled facts that, if proven, establish (1) the existence of an antecedent debt under § 547 and Texas Business & Commerce Code § 24.006(b) ; and (2) that, as a result of a settlement agreement, the Debtor did not receive reasonably equivalent value as a matter of law. Plaintiff is granted leave to amend her Complaint no later than March 22, 2021, to state facts in support her claims (1) that as to Count I, the alleged preferential transfer diminished or depleted the debtor's estate; and (2) with respect to Counts II and IV, under § 548 and Texas Business & Commerce Code § 24.006(a) as to reasonably equivalent value. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of Counts I, II and IV without further orders of this Court.
Dale Wesley Chapman's ("Debtor ") background and his relationship with the Defendants provide color to the present posture of this case. The following are the relevant facts as set forth in Catherine Stone Curtis's ("Plaintiff ") Amended Complaint and accompanying exhibits.1
1. On August 17, 1982, a deed dated July 30, 1982, was recorded in the Real Property Records of Hidalgo County, Texas, whereby real property and improvements described therein, used as a shopping mall in McAllen, Texas ("Mall "), was conveyed by Colonial Village, Inc., to Gloria. T. Chapman.2 At the time of the transfer of the Mall to Gloria T. Chapman, she was married to Debtor, the deed from Colonial Village, Inc. to Gloria T. Chapman identified Gloria T. Chapman as grantee,3 and both Gloria T. Chapman and Debtor were control parties of Colonial Village, Inc., with Gloria T. Chapman being the President of that entity and Debtor being the Secretary.4
2. The Mall, once conveyed to Gloria. T. Chapman, became the sole management community property of Gloria. T. Chapman. Alternatively, the Mall became the joint management community property of the marital estate of the Debtor and Gloria. T. Chapman.5
3. Defendants Herbert R. Scurlock, III, Shari Ann Moore, Tari A. Garcia, Tami J. Albreksten, Thomas T. Scurlock and Lori M. Martin are the biological children of Gloria T. Chapman and were all relatives of the Debtor "by marriage."6
4. On July 17, 2000, by and through an instrument, Debtor and Gloria T. Chapman created the Chapman Family Trust.7
5. On July 25, 2000, a deed was recorded in the Real Property Records of Hidalgo County, Texas, whereby the Mall was conveyed to the Chapman Family Trust.8
6. On November 10, 2000, the Chapman Family Trust was amended.9 Both Gloria T. Chapman and Debtor were Trustees and beneficiaries of the Chapman Family Trust.10 Defendants were remainder beneficiaries of the Chapman Family Trust,11 which includes a spendthrift clause.12
7. On January 6, 2004, Defendants' mother Gloria T. Chapman passed away.13
8. Debtor later remarried Barbara Ward.14
9. On June 15, 2015, Defendants filed suit against the Debtor individually and as trustee of the Chapman Family Trust in Cause No. C-2462-15-F, in the 332nd Judicial District Court of Hidalgo County, Texas (the "State Court Lawsuit "), seeking, among other things, monetary damages against the Debtor for the alleged breach of fiduciary duty and breach of trust, fraud, constructive fraud, conversion, and breach of contract.15
10. On March 29, 2018, Debtor's first bankruptcy case was filed ("First Bankruptcy ").16 Based on Debtor's disclosures in the First Bankruptcy case, his assets were valued at $509,346.62 with corresponding liabilities of $3,946,242.89.17 Defendants had actual knowledge of the First Bankruptcy and were represented by counsel therein.18
11. On April 2, 2018, Debtor removed the State Court Lawsuit to this Court and an adversary proceeding commenced.19
12. On April 18, 2018, Defendants filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay ("Motion for Relief "), and an accompanying motion for remand ("Motion for Remand ").20
13. On June 8, 2018, the Motion for Relief was granted21 and Adversary Proceeding No. 18-7006 was remanded back to State Court.22
14. On June 11, 2018, Debtor filed a voluntary motion to dismiss his chapter 11 proceeding.23
15. On June 20, 2018, Debtor's First Bankruptcy case was dismissed with prejudice for refiling for a period of one year by order of this court.24
16. On October 9, 2018, Defendants settled with Debtor ("Settlement Agreement ").25 The Settlement Agreement provides, inter alia, that Debtor:
(i) relinquishes and disclaims any and all interest in the Chapman Family Trust
(ii) resigns and withdraws as Trustee/Co-Trustee of the Chapman Family Trust
(iii) receives guaranteed payments in the amount of $4,500 a month for the remainder of his life
(iv) is released from all liability in relation to the judgment obtained against him in Bankruptcy Court in the amount of $20,000
(v) is released from all liability arising from the District Court's Order compelling Defendant to reimburse the Chapman Family Trust for 2017 property taxes in the amount of $92,000
(vi) is released from all liability arising from the District Court's Order compelling Defendant to reimburse the Chapman Family Trust for the security deposits in the amount of $23,810.
(vii) Herbert R. Scurlock, III became the Trustee of the Chapman Family Trust.
17. On December 6, 2018, Debtor filed a Motion to Reopen the First Bankruptcy for the limited purpose of introducing his Motion to Clarify and Alternatively to Partially Modify the Order of Dismissal with Prejudice to Refilling for 365 days.26
18. On January 9, 2019, this Court held a hearing and granted the motion, allowing Debtor to file a chapter 7 or 13 bankruptcy.27
19. On August 22, 2019, Debtor filed the instant chapter 7 bankruptcy case.28 Prior to execution/consummation of the Settlement Agreement, the Debtor had a financial interest in the Chapman Family Trust.29 On the Petition Date, the Debtor's schedules indicated that his assets were valued at $86,465.97 with corresponding liabilities of $134,217.69.30
20. On July 7, 2020, (320 days later) Plaintiff filed a complaint ("Complaint ") against The Chapman Family Trust ("Defendant Chapman Family Trust "), Herbert R. Scurlock, III, Shari Ann Moore, Tari A. Garcia, Tami J. Albreksten, Thomas T. Scurlock and Lori M. Martin ("Defendants ").31
21. On August 14, 2020, Debtor died.32
22. On August 21, 2020, all of the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint ("Motion to Dismiss ") because, according to Defendants, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).33
23. On September 23, 2020, Plaintiff filed her Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Response ").34
24. On November 17, 2020, this Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss.35 At the conclusion of the hearing the Court took the matter under advisement and ordered briefing on the issue of whether a trust (here, the Chapman Family Trust) could be sued.36
25. Prior to filing a brief on this narrow issue, on December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("Amended Complaint ").37 In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff substitutes "The Chapman Family Trust" for "Herbert R. Scurlock, III, Trustee of the Chapman Family Trust."38 Plaintiff pled the following five causes of action:
a. Count I - 11 U.S.C. § 547 - preferential transfer claim;
b. Count II - 11 U.S.C § 548 - fraudulent transfer claim;
c. Count III - 11 U.S.C. § 550 - recovery of avoided transfer under §§ 547 and 548 ;
d. Count IV - Texas Business & Commerce Code § 24.006(a) and § 24.008 - recovery of fraudulent transfer; and e. Count V - Texas Business & Commerce Code § 24.006(b) and § 24.008 - recovery of fraudulent transfer.
26. On December 7, 2020, Defendants filed a statement to supplement their Motion to Dismiss.39
27. On December 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed her response.40
II. Jurisdiction and Venue This Court holds jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, which provides "the district courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11 or arising in or related to cases under title 11." An adversary proceeding falls within the Court's "related to" jurisdiction if the "outcome of that proceeding could conceivably have any effect on the estate being administered in bankruptcy."41 Section 157 allows a district court to "refer" all bankruptcy and related cases to the bankruptcy court, wherein the latter court will appropriately preside over the matter.42 This Court determines that pursuant...
