Chavez v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 6109
| Tex. App. | 2015Background
- A wrongful-death suit followed a 2007 vehicle–train collision; plaintiffs (Chavez family) sued Kansas City Southern (KC Southern) and engineer Jose Juarez. Trial verdict for defendants was set aside after a new-trial was granted.
- Plaintiffs’ counsel and KC Southern negotiated a settlement memorialized in an October 5, 2010 letter (signed by plaintiff attorney J. Christopher Dean). The trial court later entertained motions to enforce that settlement.
- Chavez (plaintiff) disavowed her trial firm at an April 7, 2011 hearing and requested time to hire new counsel; hearings to enforce the settlement were held May 31 and June 23, 2011 (she did not appear at either). The court entered judgment enforcing the settlement and awarding $531,000.
- This court previously reversed because the settlement letter had not been filed of record (Rule 11). After remand the letter was filed and KC Southern filed a breach-of-contract counterclaim and moved for summary judgment to enforce the settlement.
- At summary judgment KC Southern produced the docket, the filed October 5, 2010 letter signed by Dean, hearing transcripts showing guardian ad litem approval, and an affidavit from KC Southern’s counsel; Chavez submitted affidavits asserting she and family members did not consent and that her original counsel pressured her.
- The trial court granted KC Southern’s summary judgment; on appeal the court affirms, holding KC Southern proved a valid Rule 11 settlement and Chavez failed to raise a genuine fact issue or establish affirmative defenses as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a valid, enforceable settlement existed under Rule 11 | Chavez argues her attorneys lacked authority to bind her (she revoked counsel) so she was not party to the signed letter | KC Southern produced the signed, filed October 5, 2010 letter and evidence Dean was Chavez’s litigation counsel with authority to settle | Held: Dean had actual authority as a matter of law; the filed letter satisfied Rule 11 and created an enforceable settlement |
| Whether essential contract elements (consent, meeting of minds, essential terms) are present | Chavez asserts lack of consent, no meeting of minds, and indefiniteness of essential terms | KC Southern points to the letter confirming agreement, allocation of payments, releases, and attorney fees as defining essential terms | Held: Essential elements present as a matter of law; Chavez produced no evidence the agreement lacked terms or a meeting of minds |
| Whether guardian ad litem’s approval was defective | Chavez argues the guardian ad litem’s recommendation was invalid because husband/co‑counsel appeared without a written appointment, or alternatively no guardian was needed | KC Southern produced hearing transcripts showing Edward Maddox’s recommendation and Adriana Maddox’s later confirmation approving the minor’s settlement | Held: Issue waived for appeal (Chavez failed to raise it in her summary judgment response); KC Southern had produced evidence of guardian recommendation |
| Whether Chavez established affirmative defenses (duress, negligent misrepresentation) | Chavez alleges duress by her own counsel and asserts negligent misrepresentation by her attorneys | KC Southern contends affirmative defenses were not established; duress must come from opposing party and negligent misrepresentation is not an affirmative defense to avoid contract | Held: Duress fails because coercion (if any) came from Chavez’s own counsel, not KC Southern; negligent misrepresentation is not an affirmative defense to avoid enforcement—Chavez did not carry burden to raise fact issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
- MMP, Ltd. v. Jones, 710 S.W.2d 59 (Tex. 1986) (movant must prove entitlement to summary judgment on each element)
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Rule 11 requirements for enforcement of settlements)
- Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1996) (settlement can be enforced even if a party withdraws consent before judgment via breach claim)
- McCamish, Martin, Brown & Loeffler v. F.E. Appling Interests, 991 S.W.2d 787 (Tex. 1999) (elements and nature of negligent misrepresentation in professional context)
- Star-Telegram, Inc. v. Doe, 915 S.W.2d 471 (Tex. 1995) (affirming summary judgment if any presented ground is meritorious)
- Green v. Midland Mortgage Co., 342 S.W.3d 686 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (attorney’s acts within scope of employment bind client; attorney may execute Rule 11 agreement)