Luz Chavez, Individually, as Representative of the Estates of Rudolph Chavez, Sr. (Deceased) and Rudolph Chavez, Jr. (Deceased), and as Next Friend of J.C., a Minor, Darlene Chavez, Allen Chavez, Francisco Chavez, and Celia Chavez v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company and Jose Juarez, 520 S.W.3d 898

Luz Chavez sued Kansas City Southern Railway and an engineer for wrongful death after a train struck a vehicle, killing her husband and son; multiple family members joined and all were represented by the same law firm.
After a defense verdict, the trial court granted a new trial; parties reached a letter settlement agreement signed by Chavez’s counsel but Chavez later told the court she did not wish to proceed and sought new counsel.
The trial court ultimately enforced the settlement, awarding Chavez (and paying her law firm) and rendered judgment; the court of appeals reversed because the agreement was not filed of record.
On remand the Railway filed the signed settlement, sued for breach, and moved for summary judgment; the Railway’s evidence showed counsel signed the agreement but did not conclusively show Chavez authorized counsel to settle.
Chavez submitted an affidavit denying consent. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railway; the court of appeals affirmed, relying on a presumption that counsel retained for litigation can bind a client.
The Texas Supreme Court granted review and reversed the court of appeals, holding the Railway failed to meet the movant’s summary-judgment burden to prove there was no genuine fact issue about counsel’s authority.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel’s signature alone establishes actual authority to settle for client	Chavez: counsel lacked authority; she did not consent	Railway: counsel retained for litigation is presumed to have authority to bind client; signature proves authority	Court: No — movant must affirmatively prove no genuine issue; signature alone insufficient
Whether a presumption of counsel’s authority can shift summary-judgment burden to non-movant	Chavez: presumption cannot shift burden in summary judgment	Railway: the presumption allows indulging reasonable inferences to support counsel-made settlement	Court: Presumptions cannot shift burden in summary-judgment proceedings; movant must produce affirmative evidence
Whether the Railway met its summary-judgment burden to establish Chavez’s consent	Chavez: affidavit creates fact issue; Railway produced no direct evidence of authorization	Railway: evidence that Chavez hired counsel and counsel signed the agreement proves consent	Court: Railway failed to conclusively establish authorization; summary judgment reversed
Proper remedy after erroneous summary judgment and appellate decisions	Chavez: remand for further proceedings to resolve factual dispute	Railway: affirm judgment enforcing settlement	Court: Reverse court of appeals and remand to trial court for further proceedings

Dubai Petroleum Co. v. Kazi, 12 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. 2000) (explains presumptions operate to establish facts until rebutted at trial)
Missouri-Kansas-Texas R.R. Co. v. City of Dallas, 623 S.W.2d 296 (Tex. 1981) (presumptions cannot be used to shift burden in summary-judgment proceedings)
Ebner v. First Bank of Smithville, 27 S.W.3d 287 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000) (discusses presumption that retained litigation counsel may settle for the client)
Katy Venture, Ltd. v. Cremona Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. 2015) (summary-judgment movant must prove no genuine issue of material fact)
Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2014) (if movant meets burden, burden shifts to non-movant to raise fact issue)