Bay, Ltd. v. the Most Reverend Wm. Michael Mulvey, S.T.L., D.D. Bishop of Corpus Christi, 686 S.W.3d 401

Bay, Ltd. sued Michael Mendietta and Bishop Mulvey (owner of Ben Bolt Ranch) for unjust enrichment, alleging Mendietta used Bay’s resources without consent to improve Mulvey’s ranch.
Bay also sued Mendietta separately in Nueces County for other unauthorized uses of company resources and money.
Bay and Mendietta later settled all their disputes via an agreement that included a $1.9 million agreed final judgment and Mendietta’s promise to pay Bay $750 per month, with $175,000 allocated to Mendietta’s homestead improvements.
Bay dropped claims against Mendietta in the Mulvey suit and proceeded solely against Mulvey, winning a jury verdict of $458,426.14 for unjust enrichment.
Mulvey argued for a settlement credit against the verdict for the prior Mendietta agreement, seeking credit for all but the $175,000 allocated to the homestead, which the trial court denied, but the appellate court reversed, applying a $1.725 million credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the agreement with Mendietta a settlement?	It’s merely forbearance, not a settlement	It ends all disputes and fits definition of settlement	Agreement is a settlement, as it ends litigation and obligates payment.
What is the settlement amount for credit?	Only $175,000, not $1.9 million (just lien amount)	Full $1.9 million amount stated in the judgment	Settlement amount is $1.9 million; payment plan doesn't reduce it.
Should credit be limited to amounts already paid?	Credit only for what Mendietta actually paid	Credit for full amount promised, not just paid	Full amount promised ($1.9M) is credited, not just payments received.
Was any portion allocated to other injuries?	Suggests various injuries, but lacks allocation	Only $175,000 earmarked for homestead; rest unallocated	Only $175,000 proved allocated elsewhere; remainder credited.

Sky View at Las Palmas, LLC v. Mendez, 555 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. 2018) (sets burden for settlement credits and explains one-satisfaction rule)
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Sterling, 822 S.W.2d 1 (Tex. 1991) (prevents double recovery for same injury via the one-satisfaction rule)
First Title Co. of Waco v. Garrett, 860 S.W.2d 74 (Tex. 1993) (settlement credits applied to avoid windfalls)
MCI Sales & Serv., Inc. v. Hinton, 329 S.W.3d 475 (Tex. 2010) (defining settlements for credit purposes)
C & H Nationwide, Inc. v. Thompson, 903 S.W.2d 315 (Tex. 1994) (settlement as anything of value in consideration of liability)