In June 2021, Steven Moy suffered fatal injuries when he fell from a golf cart driven by Jeremy Sagray; the real parties say Sagray was intoxicated, with a blood-alcohol level of .107 and metabolites of marijuana and cocaine. The real parties contend that within about ten days Jeremy and Michelle Sagray discussed in messages the need to "protect assets," including their "company [and] everything," from a wrongful death suit, and then used entities they wholly own and control, including JMAB LLC and its subsidiaries, with help from their wealth advisor Avid Wealth Partners, LLC, to move assets beyond the reach of Moy's survivors.¹ The relators dispute that the two sets of claims are related, saying the tort and fraudulent-transfer claims arise from separate, distinct, and non-overlapping facts.²

Misty Moy, individually and as administratrix of Steven Moy's estate, sued in April 2022 in the 438th District Court of Bexar County, asserting negligence and gross negligence against Jeremy Sagray and, under TUFTA, claims that Jeremy, Michelle Sagray, Avid Wealth Partners, JMAB, LLC and Sagray Properties, LLC transferred assets to prevent collection of any judgment. The relators moved for separate trials, and on March 5, 2025 Judge Angelica Jimenez, sitting by assignment, denied the request.¹ The Fourth Court of Appeals denied mandamus on June 11, 2025 without substantive analysis.² The relators petitioned this Court on September 10, 2025, Moy responded January 5, 2026, and on February 27, 2026 the Court requested briefs on the merits; relators filed April 29, 2026, the real parties filed July 17, 2026, and relators replied October 1, 2026 (Docket).

Original proceeding for writ of mandamus in the Supreme Court after the Fourth Court of Appeals denied mandamus relief from a Bexar County order denying separate trials of wrongful-death and fraudulent-transfer claims. The Court requested and received merits briefing but has not yet granted or denied the petition.

Whether the relators are entitled to mandamus relief where (a) the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying separate trials because the wrongful-death tort and TUFTA claims arise from separate, distinct, non-overlapping facts, evidence on the TUFTA claims will unduly prejudice the defense of the tort claims and vice versa, and a combined trial will seriously inconvenience multiple parties and the public, and (b) the relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal.¹

Relators (Avid Wealth Partners, LLC; Jeremy and Michelle Sagray; JMAB, LLC; and Sagray Properties, LLC): The wrongful-death and TUFTA claims involve more than one cause of action and are not substantially related, so Rule 174(b) and Rule 40 favor separate trials. A single trial would unfairly prejudice them: evidence relevant to the transfer claims, including relative wealth, is unduly prejudicial to the defense of the tort claims under Rule 403, and evidence on the tort would prejudice the TUFTA defendants, resulting in manifest injustice. Four TUFTA defendants not implicated in the wrongful death claim and the public would be seriously inconvenienced. Relators say there is no adequate remedy by appeal and the question is of substantial importance to the state's jurisprudence; in reply they argue the real parties' claims of delay and prejudice are unsupported by evidence.¹

Real Parties in Interest (Misty Moy, et al.): Trial courts have broad discretion to deny separate trials, and mandamus requires showing the court could reasonably reach only one decision. The TUFTA claim is interrelated with the basic liability issues, because the Sagrays' efforts to conceal assets are part of the underlying tortious conduct and are relevant to the reprehensibility of grossly negligent conduct under the Moriel framework, which, they say, must be proved in the first phase of trial to support exemplary damages beyond the statutory cap. Separate trials would also cause extreme delay in vindicating the TUFTA claim, undermining the statute's purpose. They argue the entities are wholly owned and controlled by the Sagrays, so any inconvenience is more imagined than real, net-worth evidence will necessarily be part of the wrongful death trial, and relators offer no limiting principle for their broad rule.²

Relators argue the matter is of substantial importance to the state's jurisprudence and that the Court should resolve it by mandamus because there is no adequate remedy by appeal; the real parties acknowledge that no Texas court has previously resolved the issues presented.¹

None