James David Horton and Jeffrey Horton v. Kimberly A. Stovall Individually, and Stovall & Associates, P.C., 05-14-01477-CV

James Horton was injured by a defective kitchen cabinet; he retained attorney Kimberly Stovall on a contingency-fee basis in June 2008.
An initial fee agreement (signed June 2008) purportedly provided for a 33 1/3% fee; a later agreement (January 2009) provided 50% if resolved after a jury verdict.
Stovall tried the case; a jury awarded $13.556 million. The parties later settled with the manufacturer for over $8 million in January 2012.
James and his son Jeffrey signed the settlement, a Rule 11 agreement, and an agreed court order directing disbursement consistent with the 50% fee; James later located the 33 1/3% contract at his house.
James sued Stovall for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, DTPA violations, unjust enrichment, and emotional distress, alleging Stovall fabricated the 50% agreement.
The trial court granted appellees’ traditional summary judgment based on ratification; the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment evidence was admissible	Horton: appellees produced no admissible affidavit or authenticated docs to support summary judgment	Stovall: submitted affidavit, depositions, settlement, Rule 11, and disbursement order as proper evidence	Court: most exhibits were proper; deposition excerpts and self‑authenticating documents are admissible; affidavit present; issue overruled
Whether plaintiff needed proof of appellees’ fraud to defeat summary judgment	Horton: Stovall must admit fraud or disputed fact remains	Stovall: admission of fraud not required; ratification is dispositive	Court: fraud admission irrelevant where ratification established; held for appellees
Whether plaintiffs raised a fact issue on ratification	Horton: he misplaced original 33 1/3% contract and only found it after signing settlement; Jeffrey denied ever agreeing to 50%	Stovall: signing settlement, Rule 11, and approved disbursement order—knowing the disbursement—constituted ratification	Court: signing and approving settlement/disbursement consistent with 50% fee constituted ratification; plaintiffs’ affidavits did not create a genuine issue
Whether ratification bars later fraud challenge	Horton: ratification invalid because induced by fraud	Stovall: post‑fraud conduct recognizing the agreement as binding waives fraud claim	Court: ratification principle applies; ratified agreement cannot later be avoided; summary judgment affirmed

Merriman v. XTO Energy, Inc., 407 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. 2013) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Friendswood Dev. Co. v. McDade & Co., 926 S.W.2d 280 (Tex. 1996) (movant must disprove at least one element of each claim or establish affirmative defense)
McConathy v. McConathy, 869 S.W.2d 341 (Tex. 1994) (deposition excerpts need not be authenticated for summary judgment)
United Blood Servs. v. Longoria, 938 S.W.2d 29 (Tex. 1997) (no difference between standards for summary judgment evidence and trial evidence regarding self‑authenticating documents)
Diversicare Gen. Partner, Inc. v. Rubio, 185 S.W.3d 842 (Tex. 2005) (summary judgment review requires resolving doubts in nonmovant’s favor)
Bob Montgomery Chevrolet, Inc. v. Dent Zone Co., 409 S.W.3d 181 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2013) (definition of ratification)
Cordero v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., 226 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007) (party induced by fraud who later recognizes the agreement waives fraud defense)
Rosenbaum v. Texas Bldg. & Mort. Co., 167 S.W.2d 506 (Tex. 1943) (ratification doctrine explained)