Court Opinion

ID: 9676242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:19:05.171454+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:46.244365
License: Public Domain

GRANT, Justice,
concurring.
I agree in the results of the majority opinion, but I disagree that this court should write an opinion on this point at this time because this opinion relies on Utts v. Short, No. 99-0366, 2000 WL 1784846, at *4 (Tex. Dec.7, 2000), which is presently pending on rehearing and is reset for submission on September 19, 2001.
Creating a verb from the Utts case, counsel for the relators characterized the practice alleged in this case as “Utts”ing. At this point in time, there is much uncertainty as to what “Utts”ing may mean.
I am in hopes that the Texas Supreme Court will give guidance to the courts of this State that cannot be provided in this opinion. Counsel in the present case presented able arguments contesting what constitutes a sham settlement. One side took the position that if the figures of distribution in the prior settlement are intentionally proportioned for the purpose of thwarting the proper credit to be applied in the pending suits, this should be construed as a sham settlement. The other side took the position that a sham transaction occurred only if the settlement agreement was a sham because the actual distribution made, or agreed to be made, was in a manner different from the settlement agreement and the settlement agreement itself was a sham to disguise the actual distribution.
In addition to this, I believe the Supreme Court should develop an appropriate procedure in a bifurcated trial so that contentions of a sham transaction as to the prior settlement could be explored after the jury had made a determination of damage entitlement. If no damages were awarded, then a further proceeding would be unnecessary. If proper allegations were made that there had been a sham settlement which would affect the credits on the jury verdict, then the trial court should allow additional discovery limited to whether a sham transaction existed. If sufficient evidence was developed to create a fact issue on that matter, then the matter should be presented to the jury for further deliberations to determine if there was a sham transaction. I do not endorse the majority opinion except for the results, because I believe further guidance may be *375forthcoming from the Supreme Court in the Utts case.