Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.

• Decision Date: 20 July 1983
• Docket Number: No. C-2086,C-2086
• Citation: 654 S.W.2d 442
• Parties: Louis P. QUINTERO et ux., Petitioners, v. JIM WALTER HOMES, INC., Respondent.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

Page 442

654 S.W.2d 442

Louis P. QUINTERO et ux., Petitioners, v.JIM WALTER HOMES, INC., Respondent.

No. C-2086.

Supreme Court of Texas.

July 20, 1983.

Francis I. Gandy, Jr., Corpus Christi, for petitioners.

Atlas & Hall, Mike Mills, McAllen, for respondent.

BARROW, Justice.

Petitioners, Louis P. and Paula Quintero, brought this suit against respondent, Jim Walter Homes, Inc., to recover damages under the Deceptive Trade Practices Act and the Consumer Credit Code.After a favorable judgment was rendered for the Quinteros, this cause was allegedly settled as a part of an aggregate settlement of several hundred claims against Jim Walter Homes by clients of attorney Hector Gonzalez.The trial court set aside the judgment and dismissed the cause.The Quinteros appealed and urged that they had withdrawn their consent to the entry of judgment of dismissal prior to its rendition.The court of appeals affirmed.648 S.W.2d 746.We reverse the judgments of the courts below and remand the cause to the trial court.

Gonzalez filed this lawsuit on behalf of the Quinteros on December 1, 1978.Prior to the commencement of trial, Gonzalez referred the Quinteros' file to another attorney, Francis Gandy, to try the case for a prearranged division of attorney fees.Gonzalez' name appears on all of the pleadings, and there is no showing that the Quinteros were ever consulted regarding this referral.On May 27, 1981, Gandy secured rendition of a judgment, based on a jury verdict, whereby the Quinteros were awarded $78,385.65.In the meantime, Gonzalez negotiated an aggregate settlement with Jim Walter Homes on behalf of 349 clients, for a lump sum of $1,592,692 to be divided among his clients in accordance with a formula he devised.¹

On June 11, 1981, before receiving notice of the judgment rendered in their favor, the Quinteros signed a release of their claim against Jim Walter Homes in Gonzalez' office.Under the formula devised by Gonzalez, the Quinteros would receive only $3,900 in cash and would have to continue paying on their note with certain deductions.The total value of their part of the settlement was approximately $13,687.Juan Gussoni, the office manager of Gonzalez' firm, told the Quinteros that although they might receive more money if they pursued their case, it could take four to five years before they obtained anything.

On June 16, 1981, the releases from Gonzalez' clients and a joint motion to dismiss the Quinteros' case were delivered to Jim Walter Homes' attorneys in exchange for a check to Gonzalez in the sum of $1,592,697.Unaware of this settlement, Gandy mailed a certified copy of the Quinteros' judgment to Gonzalez' office on June 8, but it was not received until June 15.On June 22, Gandy mailed a copy of the judgment to the Quinteros.Upon learning of the judgment, the Quinteros notified the trial court by letter of their disapproval of the settlement and revocation of Gonzalez' authority to represent them.Although Jim Walter Homes knew the Quinteros no longer consented to the judgment of dismissal, it refused to release them from the aggregate settlement agreement.A timely motion for new trial was filed on June 26, 1981 by Jim Walter Homes on the advise of the Gonzalez firm along with the joint motion to dismiss the Quinteros' case.The motion to dismiss was signed by an attorney for Jim Walter Homes and a member of Gonzalez' firm.

On August 11, 1981, the trial court held a hearing on the motion for new trial and the motion to dismiss to determine if the Quinteros had consented to the joint motion to dismiss.Mr. Quintero testified that he did not wish to have his case dismissed and that he wished to recover under the judgment rendered on May 27, 1981.Jim Walter Homes asserted that, because Gonzalez, who was the Quinteros' attorney at the time the settlement was reached, had joined in this motion, the trial court had no alternative but to render the judgment as requested.SeeTex.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10.After considering this testimony, the trial court impliedly set aside the $78,000 judgment rendered on the jury's verdict and rendered a judgment of dismissal.

Our determination of this case is limited to the...