Nader Daryapayma A/K/A Nader Payma and 4 Angels, Inc. v. Myung 'Michael' Park, 02-15-00159-CV

Park purchased a dry-cleaning business in Feb 2008 under a contract naming A-4 Supply & Parts as seller, Bogert as A-4’s president, and Daryapayma as seller’s representative; Park paid $150,000 of a $190,000 price.
Contract/addendum required refund of the $150,000 if a new lease was not in place within a month and required Daryapayma to buy back the business within six months if Park was unsatisfied.
Park alleged the $150,000 was deposited into 4 Angels’ account (Daryapayma is 4 Angels’ sole officer) and was never transferred to A-4; lease was not obtained and representations were false.
Park sued Daryapayma, 4 Angels, Bogert, and A-4 for fraud, DTPA violations, negligent misrepresentation, money had and received, and related relief; default judgments were entered against Bogert and A-4 for $173,844.88 (including $150,000 contract damages).
A jury found for Park against Daryapayma and 4 Angels; the trial court awarded $150,000 plus additional damages and fees against each of Daryapayma and 4 Angels.
Appellants argued the trial court violated the one-satisfaction rule by permitting multiple full recoveries for a single $150,000 injury when unsatisfied default judgments already existed against Bogert and A-4.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether awarding full damages against multiple defendants violates the one-satisfaction rule	Park: one-satisfaction inapplicable until some judgment is paid/satisfied; obtaining judgments is not the same as satisfaction	Appellants: multiple full judgments create double recovery for the same $150,000 injury	Court: One-satisfaction bars multiple recoveries only upon satisfaction; unsatisfied judgments do not preclude separate judgments against others — overruled appellants
Whether directed verdict should have been granted for appellants	Park: evidence supported fraud, DTPA, negligent misrep., and money had and received claims	Appellants: same one-satisfaction-based argument supports directed verdict	Court: Denial of directed verdict proper because one-satisfaction argument fails; issue overruled
Whether $75,000 additional damages against Daryapayma were improper	Park: additional damages supported by verdict and damages proofs	Appellants: additional damages double-count the single injury	Court: Award sustained because one-satisfaction rule did not bar trial court’s judgment
Whether failure to plead joint-and-several liability was reversible error	Park: not required or was waived by appellants’ failure to timely object	Appellants: absence of pleading prevents multiple judgments	Court: Any pleading requirement was waived; appellants did not preserve complaint

Tony Gullo Motors, I, L.P. v. Chapa, 212 S.W.3d 299 (Tex. 2006) (one-satisfaction rule prohibits more than one recovery for same injury)
Crown Life Ins. Co. v. Casteel, 22 S.W.3d 378 (Tex. 2000) (one injury from different acts yields single recovery)
T.L. James & Co. v. Statham, 558 S.W.2d 865 (Tex. 1977) (satisfaction, not mere judgment, bars subsequent suit)
Shriro Corp. v. Ward, 570 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. 1978) (settlement or paid judgment that equals damages bars second suit)
Krobar Drilling, L.L.C. v. Ormiston, 426 S.W.3d 107 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2012, pet. denied) (unsatisfied judgment against one tortfeasor does not bar suit against another)
Burchfield v. Prosperity Bank, 408 S.W.3d 542 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (one-satisfaction and double-recovery inapplicable where prior default judgment remained unpaid)
Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc., 769 S.W.2d 515 (Tex. 1988) (party asserting affirmative defense bears burden to plead and prove it)
Nielsen v. Ford Motor Co., 612 S.W.2d 209 (Tex. Civ. App.—San Antonio 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (acceptance of satisfaction of judgment against one joint tortfeasor releases others)