Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
Texas Court of Appeals
709 S.W.2d 225 (1985)
- Written by Gonzalo Rodriguez, JD
Facts
Louis and Paula Quintero (the Quinteros) (plaintiffs) contracted with Jim Walter Homes, Inc. (Jim Walter) (defendant) to build a home. The Quinteros were dissatisfied with the home and retained attorney Hector Gonzalez to sue Jim Walter. Because Gonzalez had hundreds of similar cases against Jim Walter, Gonzalez, with the approval of the Quinteros, arranged for attorney Francis Gandy to litigate the case. On May 27, 1981, Gandy settled the Quinteros’ case for approximately $78,000. Before Gandy informed the Quinteros of the settlement, Gonzalez called the Quinteros to tell them that he had negotiated a $1,800,000 judgment for all 349 of his clients, and the Quinteros agreed to participate in the aggregate settlement. Under this agreement, the Quinteros would receive a settlement of approximately $13,000. On June 22, Gandy told the Quinteros that he had settled the case for them. The Quinteros then notified the court that they were opposed to the settlement and were firing Gonzalez. Despite knowing this, the attorneys for Jim Walter filed a consent-dismissal motion in the Quinteros’ case. The trial court granted the motion on August 18, 1981, and set aside the first settlement negotiated by Gandy. The Quinteros challenged the second settlement agreement, arguing that it must be set aside because Gonzalez had violated the Texas Code of Professional Responsibility by failing to provide the Quinteros with a breakdown of all the claims involved in the settlement and how the settlement proceeds would be divided among clients.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nye, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.