In Preston Gate, LP v. Bukaty, 248 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. App.--Dallas 2008, no pet.), appellee Bukaty filed a lawsuit on behalf of appellee Network Multi-Family Security Corporation against "LTS Group, Inc. d/b/a Preston Gate LP, f/k/a Preston Partners, LP" to recover on a debt owed for construction services. Id. at 895. The trial court ultimately rendered a default judgment against only LTS. Id. Bukaty served LTS with a writ of execution and filed an abstract of judgment against "LTS Group, Inc. dba Preston Gate, LP fka Preston Partners, LP." Id. As a result, property owned by Preston Gate was encumbered by the resulting judgment lien even though the judgment was solely against LTS. Id. Despite Preston Gate's request, appellees refused to remove the judgment lien from Preston Gate's property. Id. Only after the trial court granted LTS's bill of review and vacated the underlying default judgment did appellees file releases of the judgment lien. Id. Preston Gate asserted claims against appellees for slander of title and filing a fraudulent lien under section 12.002. Id. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees. Id. Preston Gate appealed. Id. On appeal, in addressing Preston Gate's section 12.002 claim, this Court specifically disagreed with Preston Gate's assertion that appellees' intent to cause it financial injury by filing the abstract of judgment was "self-evident" based on appellees' failure to remove the lien as Preston Gate had demanded. Id. at 897. The Court stated: "The evidence before the trial court established that the abstract of judgment was filed and based on the existing default judgment obtained by appellees. That judgment was based, in turn, on the contract that Preston Gate had executed with Network. Because the record is devoid of any evidence that appellees intended to cause Preston Gate financial injury when it filed the abstract of judgment, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on this claim." Id. The Court rejected the argument that intent to cause financial injury is "self-evident" from the refusal to remove a lien. There again, the lienholder was pursuing an actual unpaid debt, and the dispute was over whether it could properly burden property owned by an affiliate of the debtor. Id. at 896. The lien holder in Preston did not refuse to remove the lien after the debt underlying the lien was satisfied. Id. at 895. Rather, when the default judgment upon which the judgment lien was based was later vacated, the lien-holder filed a release of the lien. Id.