James Poe and Senior Retirement Planners, LLC v. Eduardo S. Espinosa in His Capacity as Receiver of Retirement Value, LLC
03-14-00518-CV
| Tex. App. | Aug 28, 2015Background
- Poe and Senior Retirement Planners, LLC appeal from a Travis County case involving Espinosa as Receiver of Retirement Value, LLC.
- The issue centers on the one-satisfaction rule and whether a $5.5 million James settlement should credit Poe for joint damages.
- Espinosa alleged the James Defendants were jointly and severally liable for all damages, including Poe’s commissions, seeking about $77 million.
- The James Settlement allegedly did not allocate proceeds between joint and sole liability, triggering a required settlement credit.
- The trial court entered judgments against Poe on other claims, prompting Poe to argue for a take-nothing judgment against Espinosa and a full settlement credit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-satisfaction rule allocation of James settlement | Poe: James settlement was unallocated and must credit Poe fully | Espinosa: settlement should not yield credit absent allocation | Credit required; take-nothing against Espinosa for James damages |
| Admission of summary judgment evidence | Poe: Burchett’s qualifications and methods were inadequately established | Espinosa: evidence sufficient for summary judgment | Abused discretion; evidentiary objections should have been sustained |
| TUFTA standing and elements | Poe: genuine issues as to creditors’ claims and fraudulent transfers exist | Espinosa: TUFTA theories supported by evidence | Summary judgment reversed; genuine issues preclude affirmance on TUFTA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Cohen v. Arthur Andersen, L.L.P., 106 S.W.3d 304 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (burden-shifting allocation framework for settlements)
- Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000) (allocation and double recovery principles)
- Dalworth Restoration, Inc. v. Rife-Marshall, 433 S.W.3d 773 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014) (unallocated settlement and nonsettling defendant liability considerations)
- Galle, Inc. v. Pool, 262 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (allocation and settlement-credit framework; overtones of Ellender)
- Osborne v. Jauregui, Inc., 252 S.W.3d 70 (Tex. App.—Austin 2008) (one-satisfaction rule applicability beyond specific causes of action)
- Wein v. Sherman, 2013 Tex. App. 10666 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (affirming de novo review for settlement-credit issues)