Court Opinion

ID: 9958847
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-10 06:13:35.895818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:52.453959
License: Public Domain

Affirmed and Opinion Filed April 3, 2024

                                      In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                               No. 05-23-00181-CV

          TESSMER LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C., ROSALINDA GOMEZ,
               AND JOSE GUADALUPE GUEL, Appellants
                                V.
              JOHNNY CARRILLO, SUZETTE CARRILLO
                 AND ISAIAH J. CARRILLO, Appellees

               On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court
                            Collin County, Texas
                   Trial Court Cause No. 429-03144-2021

                        MEMORANDUM OPINION
                 Before Justices Garcia, Breedlove, and Kennedy
                          Opinion by Justice Breedlove
      In this suit to enforce a settlement agreement, the trial court rendered summary

judgment for plaintiffs/appellees Johnny Carrillo, Suzette Carrillo, and Isaiah J.

Carrillo. Appellants Rosalinda Villagomez, Jose Guadalupe Guel, and Tessmer Law

Firm, P.L.L.C. appeal, contending summary judgment was improper because the

Carrillos did not satisfy their burden to establish conclusively that an enforceable

settlement agreement was created, or in the alternative, that there were genuine

issues of material fact precluding summary judgment. Concluding that the Carrillos
established their right to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

                                        BACKGROUND

         The settlement agreement at issue arose from the death of Geanesse Guel in a

two-vehicle automobile accident in October 2020. Geanesse was a passenger in a

car driven by appellee Isaiah Carrillo. Another driver collided with Isaiah’s car and

then fled the scene on foot. Isaiah was severely injured and Geanesse died at the

scene.

         Appellants Rosalinda Villagomez1 and Jose Guadalupe Guel are Geanesse’s

parents. Appellant Tessmer Law Firm, P.L.L.C. (TLF) represents Villagomez and

Guel.

         Isaiah is the son of appellees Johnny Carrillo and Suzette Carrillo. The

Carrillos were insureds under an automobile liability policy issued by Home State

County Mutual Insurance Company. Villagomez made a claim with Home State for

Geanesse’s death. Adjuster Lola Shoemake was assigned to handle the claim.

         On or about November 11, 2020, Shoemake received a letter from Katherine

Cabello-Flores, an attorney at TLF. Cabello-Flores wrote that “[t]his office

represents Rosalinda Villagomez, in relation to the loss of life of her daughter” in

the October 2020 accident.

   1
      Rosalinda’s surname appears as both “Gomez” and “Villagomez” in the record and the briefs. We
will use “Villagomez,” the spelling used most often in her brief.
                                               –2–
      On March 26, 2021, Shoemake and Cabello-Flores had a telephone

conversation. Shoemake later testified in her affidavit that “[i]n that conversation,

Cabello-Flores stated Villagomez desired to settle the claims arising from Guel’s

death, that she had obtained the father’s permission to handle the settlement on his

behalf, that [TLF] would work with the parents to divide the settlement funds, and

that Cabello-Flores would have both parents sign a full and final release for the

benefit of the Carrillos.”

      A few days later, Elaine Simons, a TLF paralegal, emailed Shoemake. The

email provided information related to Shoemake’s conversation with Cabello-

Flores. Simons attached a signed release and affidavit of heirship from Guel. Simons

explained that no autopsy report was available due to the pending criminal case and

there were no medical bills or liens because Geanesse died at the scene.

      On March 31, 2021, Cabello-Flores again wrote to Shoemake, reiterating that

“this office represents Rosalinda Villagomez in connection with the wrongful death

of her daughter” in the October 2020 motor vehicle accident, and stating:

      We have reviewed all the information presently available in order to
      evaluate this case for settlement purposes and based upon the review of
      the liability and damage aspects of this case, we are authorized to offer
      to settle this matter, at this time, for the total amount of $100,000.00.

      We hereby make demand upon you for tender of $100,000.00 before
      the expiration of thirty (30) days from your receipt of this demand. In
      exchange, we propose to fully release your insured for all claims and
      liens. This demand is extremely reasonable and just. In the event this
      demand is not met by the expiration date, this offer of settlement is
      automatically revoked and we will proceed to litigation.

                                        –3–
       On April 13, 2021, Simons emailed Shoemake requesting “an update on the

attached demand that was sent on March 31, 2021.” Shoemake later testified that on

April 16, 2021, she spoke with Simons “and advised her that Home State accepted

the demand on behalf of the Carrillos.” She “further stated that signed releases would

be needed” from both Villagomez and Guel. She and Simons “agreed that one

release could be used, as opposed to two separate releases.” Shoemake followed up

by email on the same day:

       Elaine,
       Our email serves to confirm our acceptance of the settlement demand
       of $100,000 made on behalf of decedent Geanesse Guel. We will
       forward our formal acceptance letter along with our release for
       signature. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please let me
       know.
       Sincerely,
       Lola

       Shoemake testified that “[a]t that time, Home State was ready and willing to

pay $100,000 to settle the claims arising from Geanesse’s death and had the ability

to make the payment in exchange for the executed releases.” She continued, “Home

State accepted the settlement demand specifically because it provided for the release

of the insureds, which would relieve them of the expenses, costs, uncertainties,

distractions, and potential liabilities of litigation.”

       On April 23, 2021, however, Cabello-Flores wrote Shoemake:

       On March 31, 2021, our office sent demand for tender of $100,000.00
       for settlement of the above-referenced matter. Unfortunately, it has
       come to our attention that we have not received requested information
       from your office necessary to evaluate this case for settlement purposes.

                                            –4–
      Therefore, please be advised that we hereby rescind the previous
      demand for tender of $100,000.00.

      We respectfully request that your office provide your insured’s policy
      documents and declarations page so that we may properly evaluate this
      matter. Upon receipt and review, we will submit a second demand to
      your office.

      Cabello-Flores again wrote Shoemake on May 18, 2021, stating that “we are

authorized to offer to settle this matter, at this time, for the total amount of policy

limits.” Cabello-Flores demanded tender of the policy limits within thirty days,

proposing to “fully release your insured for all claims and liens” in exchange.

      Shoemake responded by letter dated May 31, 2021, discussing the parties’

previous communications and concluding,

      Therefore, with this letter, we reaffirm our acceptance of your
      settlement demand for $100,000 which was represented to us by you as
      having been made: (1) in good faith; (2) on behalf of Ms. Rosalinda
      Villagomez and Jose Guadalupe Guel; (3) for resolving any and all
      claims and liens against our insured, which include Johnny Carrillo,
      Suzette Carrillo and Isaiah Carrillo; and (4) resolves any and all claims
      related to the auto accident on or about October 23, 2020, that resulted
      in the death of Geanesse Guel.

      Please provide your payment instructions for concluding our agreed
      acceptance of your settlement demand.
The record does not include a response by Cabello-Flores or TLF.

      The Carrillos filed this lawsuit on June 14, 2021, seeking a declaratory

judgment that “there is a valid settlement and release agreement” between the parties

releasing the Carrillos “from all legal liability” to Villagomez and Guel arising from

the collision; that “Home State is willing, ready, and able to effectuate the agreement

                                         –5–
once drafting instructions are received,” and that TLF, Villagomez, and Guel “are in

breach of the settlement and release agreement by failing to provide drafting

instructions to complete the settlement and by preparing to file suit on claims that

they have already agreed to release.”

      Villagomez, however, represented by TLF, filed suit against Isaiah and

Johnny Carrillo in Bexar County on July 20, 2021, seeking damages for Geanesse’s

wrongful death. The record also reflects that Cabello-Flores sent a letter to

Shoemake on August 17, 2021, demanding a tender of the policy limits in

accordance with G. A. Stowers Furniture Co. v. American Indemnity Co., 15 S.W.2d

544 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1929, holding approved).

      Meanwhile, in this lawsuit, the Carrillos moved for summary judgment “to

enforce the settlement agreement negotiated by their insurance carrier with

Defendants,” supported by Shoemake’s affidavit and exhibits. Appellants

responded, relying on an affidavit by Cabello-Flores and additional exhibits.

Cabello-Flores testified:

       Home State “ignored” TLF’s request for a copy of the policy’s declarations
        page;

       Her March 31, 2021 settlement demand “was sent in error” and “was not
        approved or authorized by the Defendants” or by Heather Clement
        Tessmer, the “lead attorney in charge for clients” at TLF;

       She was unaware that the settlement demand “was not in accordance with”
        the policy limits because Home State never sent the declarations page;

       Home State did not tender $100,000 within 30 days; “[t]herefore, the
        acceptance was never performed”;
                                    –6–
       On April 23, 2021, “our office realized that the correspondence was not
        authorized by the Defendants or [Heather Clement Tessmer], and that
        Shoemake did not disclose essential information, including the insurance
        declarations pages, to our office”;

       “On or about” April 23, 2021, she had a phone conversation with
        Shoemake where Shoemake “orally disclosed” that the policy limit was
        $250,000;

       On April 23, 2021, she sent a revocation letter of the previous demand;

       On May 18, 2021, she sent another letter to Shoemake demanding payment
        of the full policy limits;

       On June 1, 2021, Shoemake replied, “seeking to enforce the initial demand
        of $100,000”;

       On August 17, 2021, TLF sent a Stowers demand for payment of the full
        policy limits; and

       No one at TLF saw the policy’s declarations page until it was attached to
        the Carrillos’ motion for summary judgment in this lawsuit. They
        discovered that the policy limits were $500,000, not $250,000 “as
        indicated by Shoemake.”

The Carrillos filed a reply to the summary judgment response, and objected to

Cabello-Flores’s affidavit on the ground that her testimony “violates the lawyer-

witness rule.”

      The trial court signed an order sustaining the Carrillos’ objections and

granting their motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the Carrillos were

entitled to a declaratory judgment that Cabello-Flores’s March 31, 2021 demand

letter and Shoemake’s April 16, 2021 email “constitute a valid and enforceable

settlement agreement between Home State County Mutual Insurance Company and

Defendants Tessmer Law Firm, PLLC, Rosalinda Villagomez, and Jose Guadalupe
                                       –7–
Guel.” The court also ruled, among other matters, that the Carrillos were entitled to

specific performance of the settlement agreement, and that its order “disposes of all

claims and is a final, appealable judgment.” This appeal followed.

                        ISSUE AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW

      In a single issue, appellants contend “[t]he trial court’s summary judgment

should be reversed because Appellees did not satisfy their burden of conclusively

establishing that an enforceable settlement agreement was created and, alternatively,

Appellants’ evidence established fact issues for the jury’s resolution.”

      We review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Trial v. Dragon, 593

S.W.3d 313, 316 (Tex. 2019). A traditional motion for summary judgment requires

the moving party to show that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c); Lujan v. Navistar,

555 S.W.3d 79, 84 (Tex. 2018). If the movant carries this burden, the burden shifts

to the nonmovant to raise a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary

judgment. Lujan, 555 S.W.3d at 84. We take evidence favorable to the nonmovant

as true, and we indulge every reasonable inference and resolve any doubts in the

nonmovant’s favor. Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds, 589 S.W.3d 127, 131 (Tex. 2019).

      We review a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude summary judgment

evidence for an abuse of discretion. Starwood Mgmt., LLC v. Swaim, 530 S.W.3d

673, 678 (Tex. 2017). Even if a trial court abuses its discretion, we will only reverse

if the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. TEX. R. APP. P.

                                         –8–
44.1(a)(1); see Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex.

1998) (appellate court must uphold trial court’s evidentiary ruling if there is any

legitimate basis for the ruling, and will not reverse a trial court for an erroneous

evidentiary ruling unless the error probably caused the rendition of an improper

judgment).

                                    DISCUSSION

      Appellants contend the Carrillos failed to meet their burden to establish that

an enforceable settlement agreement existed. They contend (1) there was no “tender”

of the $100,000 settlement amount by the required date, and accordingly, no

acceptance of the offer, (2) the demand was limited to Villagomez’s claims against

Johnny Carrillo, and Home State made a counteroffer, not an acceptance, by adding

parties to the demand, and (3) “the Carrillos presented no evidence proving that the

Tessmer Law Firm had authority to enter into the purported settlement agreement.”

They also argue that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings were erroneous.

      1. Tender of payment

      Appellants argue that Home State did not “tender” payment in strict

compliance with the terms of the demand. They contend that because Cabello-Flores

demanded “tender of $100,000,” “actual production of the funds” was required, and

Shoemake’s email response accepting the offer was insufficient. Appellants rely on

Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863, 866 (Tex. 1963), and

Givens v. Midland Mtge. Co., 393 S.W.3d 876, 882–83 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012,

                                        –9–
no pet.),2 in support of their argument. In both of these cases, the courts held that “a

valid and legal tender of money requires actual production of the funds” and offer to

pay the debt involved. Baucum, 370 S.W.2d at 866; Givens, 393 S.W.3d at 882–83.

        The Carrillos respond that Baucum and Givens involved fulfillment of

obligations that were “absolutely due,” rather than a mutual exchange of promises.

They argue that under the circumstances in this case, “tender” “only required Home

State to give notice to the Appellants that it was ready and willing to perform and

had the present ability to do so,” citing Perry v. Little, 419 S.W.2d 198, 200 (Tex.

1967).

        In Perry, Little promised Perry he would purchase certain stocks if Perry first

purchased the stocks from a third party and held them until a certain date. Id. at 199.

Perry did so and contacted Little when the date for holding the stocks passed. Id.

Little, however, refused to purchase the stock. Id. at 200. In Perry’s subsequent suit

for breach of contract, the supreme court concluded that Perry had “tendered” the

stock, defining “tender” as “a readiness and willingness to perform in case of the

    2
      Appellants also rely on Eid v. Pond, No. 01-18-00553-CV, 2019 WL 1941348, at *3 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] May 2, 2019) (mem. op.), judgment vacated after settlement (Nov. 22, 2019). In Eid,
the court held that an insurer’s letter making a separate counteroffer “and not unconditionally accepting the
terms of the demand letter” was not a “tender” of an insurance policy’s limits. See id. The court stated that
“[p]ayment is a material term of a settlement agreement, and acceptance must be in strict compliance with
the terms of the original offer.” Id. Here, however, Shoemake’s email “confirm[ing] our acceptance of the
settlement demand of $100,000 made on behalf of decedent Geanesse Guel” was not a “separate
counteroffer.” Cf. id. (insurance company’s letter required signature of additional party and failed to state
the policy limits as the demand required). Accordingly, we conclude Eid does not provide guidance here.
                                                   –10–
concurrent performance by the other party, with present ability to do so, and notice

to the other party of such readiness.” Id. The court explained,

        It is said that the strict rules of tender are not applicable to a conditional
        offer to perform a concurrent condition; that what is essential is that it
        shall appear to the court and shall have been made clear to the other
        party to the contract that the exchange agreed upon would be carried
        out immediately if the latter would do his part. This requirement
        involves both ability on the part of the plaintiff to perform and an
        indication of that ability to the other party. The actual production of the
        money or other thing which the plaintiff is to give is said to be
        unnecessary.
        As the courts have said[,] the word ‘tender’ as used in connection with
        such a transaction, does not mean the same thing as when used with
        reference to the offer to pay money where it is absolutely due, but only
        a readiness and willingness to perform in case of the concurrent
        performance by the other party, with present ability to do so, and notice
        to the other party of such readiness.
Id. (internal quotations omitted).

        Citing Perry and distinguishing Baucum,3 we have explained that “[s]trict

rules of tender are not applicable to a conditional offer to perform a concurrent

condition.”       Bavarian       Pastry       Shop,      Inc.    v.    Bavarian        Bakeries,       Inc.,

No. 05-94-01002-CV, 1995 WL 702571, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 22, 1995,

    3
      Givens, the other case cited by appellants for the proposition that “tender” requires actual production
of the funds, follows Baucum. See Givens, 393 S.W.3d at 882–83. In that case, Givens argued he had been
denied the opportunity to reinstate his mortgage loan after default. Id. The deed of trust provided that to
reinstate the underlying promissory note, the borrower was required to “tender in a lump sum all amounts
required to bring Borrower’s amount current.” Id. at 882–83. There was undisputed summary judgment
evidence that the lender sent Givens a reinstatement quote “setting out the necessary funds to be paid in
order to reinstate the note,” and that Givens had not paid the amount indicated. Id. at 878, 883. As in
Baucum, and unlike Perry or this case, the money in question was “absolutely due.” See Perry, 419 S.W.2d
at 200.

                                                   –11–
no writ) (not designated for publication) (“the rule of tender found in Baucum is

inapplicable” to a conditional offer to perform a concurrent condition). In that case,

the parties agreed to the sale of a bakery by signing an asset purchase agreement and

a consulting agreement. Id. at *1. The sellers “began to have second thoughts” and

attempted to modify the agreements. Id. The parties did not reach agreement on any

modifications, and the buyers attempted to proceed with the closing by giving their

attorney a cashier’s check. Id. at *2. The buyers’ attorney sent a copy of the check

to the seller’s attorney and stated that the buyers “were ready to perform.” Id. The

sellers did not close, the buyers sued, and a jury made findings in the buyers’ favor.

Id.

      On appeal, the sellers argued that because the buyers never presented the

cashier’s check to them, there was no “tender” of performance under the contract.

Id. We rejected this argument, explaining, that “[w]hen a party sues for breach of a

contract requiring mutual performance obligations, he need not tender performance

of the contract.” Id. “What is required is: (1) readiness and willingness to perform in

case of the concurrent performance by the other party; (2) a present willingness to

do so; and (3) notice to the other party of such readiness.” Id. (citing Perry, 419

S.W.2d at 200). “The actual delivery of the money is unnecessary.” Id. (citing Perry,

419 S.W.2d at 200). We distinguished Baucum, explaining that the purchase

agreement at issue “was a conditional offer to perform a concurrent condition,”

specifically, “[i]n return for $100,000 the [plaintiffs] would receive the bakery and

                                        –12–
all of its assets.” Id. We concluded that “the rule of tender found in Baucum is

inapplicable.” Id.; see also Luccia v. Ross, 274 S.W.3d 140, 149–50 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, pet. denied) (“The term ‘tender’ means to notify the other

party that one intends to perform one’s side of the bargain immediately or at a

specific time and place and to demand that the other party do likewise.” [citing Perry

and Bavarian Pastry Shop]).

      As in Bavarian Pastry Shop, we conclude that “the rule of tender found in

Baucum is inapplicable” because Shoemake’s email “demonstrated [Home State’s]

ability and willingness to make a tender” of the amount demanded in Cabello-

Flores’s letter. See Bavarian Pastry Shop, 1995 WL 702571, at *3. We overrule this

portion of appellants’ issue.

      2. Acceptance of offer

      Appellants contend that the Carrillos “did not accept the settlement demand

per its required terms of acceptance.” They argue that at most, Shoemake made a

counteroffer to settle Villagomez’s claims against Johnny Carrillo (father of Isaiah,

the driver of the car), and the settlement did not include Geanesse’s survival claims

or Guel’s wrongful death claims.

      The Carrillos first respond that appellants have waived these complaints by

failing to raise them until their motion for new trial. Appellants correctly argue that

they bore no burden in opposing the Carrillos’ summary judgment motion; the

Carrillos were required to prove their right to judgment as a matter of law regardless

                                        –13–
of any response appellants made, or did not make. See, e.g., M.D. Anderson Hosp.

& Tumor Inst. v. Willrich, 28 S.W.3d 22, 23 (Tex. 2000). Accordingly, appellants

may argue on appeal that the Carrillos’ summary judgment proof was insufficient as

a matter of law. See id. But “[i]ssues not expressly presented to the trial court by

written motion, answer or other response shall not be considered on appeal as

grounds for reversal.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 166a(c). An issue not raised in a summary

judgment response remains waived on appeal even if the non-movant subsequently

raised it in a motion for new trial. Kelley-Coppedge, Inc. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 980

S.W.2d 462, 467 (Tex. 1998).

      Here, appellants argued in their motion for new trial that the settlement offer

and acceptance did not include Guel, Suzette Carrillo, or Isaiah Carrillo. These

arguments were not made in their summary judgment response; in fact, appellants

argued there that they “made a unilateral offer to Is[a]iah J. Carrillo, Plaintiff, to

settle the case.” In their summary judgment response, appellants argued that

(1) Home State did not tender the funds, (2) “Cabello-Flores’ offer” was made

without authorization from Heather Clement Tessmer, (3) there was no breach

because the offer was revoked by Cabello-Flores’s April 23, 2021 letter, (4) the

Carrillos were not entitled to specific performance because there was no tender, and

(5) the Carrillos were not entitled to declaratory relief because “a genuine issue of

material fact exists regarding whether a valid and enforceable contract was formed.”

                                        –14–
      Shoemake’s affidavit testimony and exhibits, detailed above, support the trial

court’s declaratory judgment that (1) Cabello-Flores’s March 31, 2021 demand letter

and Shoemake’s April 16, 2021 email “constitute a valid and enforceable settlement

agreement between Home State County Mutual Insurance Company and Defendants

Tessmer Law Firm, PLLC, Rosalinda Villagomez, and Jose Guadalupe Guel”;

(2) the settlement agreement was for the benefit of third-party beneficiaries Plaintiffs

Johnny Carrillo, Suzette Carrillo, and Isaiah Carrillo; and (3) “the terms of the

settlement agreement were to release Plaintiffs Johnny Carrillo, Suzette Carrillo, and

Isaiah Carrillo for all liability for the death of Geanesse Guel in exchange for the

consideration of one lump sum of $100,000.00 tendered to Defendants Tessmer Law

Firm, PLLC, Rosalinda Villagomez, and Jose Guadalupe Guel.” We overrule this

portion of appellants’ issue.

      3. Authority to settle

      Appellants further contend that summary judgment was not proper because

the Carrillos “presented no evidence proving that the Tessmer law firm had authority

to enter into the purported settlement agreement.” We disagree. Exhibit A-4 to

Shoemake’s affidavit in support of the Carrillos’ motion for summary judgment is a

letter dated November 11, 2020, on “Tessmer Law Firm” letterhead and signed by

Cabello-Flores, “Associate Attorney,” stating that “[t]his office represents Rosalinda

Villagomez, in relation to the loss of life of her daughter, Geanesse Kassandra Guel,”

in the October 24, 2020 accident. Similarly, the March 31, 2021 settlement demand

                                         –15–
was on “Tessmer Law Firm” letterhead, signed by Cabello-Flores, stating, “we are

authorized to offer to settle this matter, at this time,” and promising that “we propose

to fully release your insured for all claims and liens” in exchange for “tender of

$100,000.”

      A rebuttable presumption exists that an attorney retained for litigation

possesses the authority to enter into a settlement agreement on behalf of a client.

See, e.g., Strad Energy Servs. USA, Ltd. v. Bernal, No. 04-16-00116-CV, 2016 WL

6242839, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Oct. 26, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.)

(collecting cases). “The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that the client did

not authorize the attorney to enter into the settlement.” Id. In summary judgment

proceedings, however, “a summary judgment movant may not use a presumption to

shift to the non-movant the burden of raising a fact issue of rebuttal.” Chavez v.

Kansas City So. Ry. Co., 520 S.W.3d 898, 900 (Tex. 2017). Here, the Carrillos were

“required to establish affirmatively that there was no genuine issue of material fact

that [the Tessmer Law Firm] was authorized” to release appellants’ claims in

exchange for the sum demanded; “that is, that [appellants] could not produce

evidence to rebut a presumption of authority.” See id.

      The Carrillos offered evidence of the Tessmer Law Firm’s own

correspondence showing (1) the Tessmer Law Firm’s November 11, 2020 letter to

Shoemake announcing its representation of Villagomez and rescinding any

“previously executed release forms”; (2) the Tessmer Law Firm’s March 31, 2021

                                         –16–
letter stating it represented Villagomez and was “authorized to offer to settle this

matter” for $100,000 in exchange for a full release; and (3) the Tessmer Law Firm’s

April 23, 2021 letter stating that “we hereby rescind the previous demand for tender

of $100,000,” because “we have not received requested information from your office

necessary to evaluate this case for settlement purposes” signed by Cabello-Flores.

Each of these letters shows the Tessmer Law Firm’s authority to act on Villagomez’s

behalf.

        In response, Cabello-Flores testified by affidavit that “On April 23, 2021, our

office realized that the [March 31, 2021] correspondence was not authorized by the

Defendants” or by Heather Clement Tessmer, “the lead attorney in charge for clients

at the firm.” Cabello-Flores did not testify to any specific facts providing the basis

for these statements. No other witness provided an affidavit on appellants’ behalf.

The trial court sustained the Carrillos’ objections to this affidavit, but even assuming

its admissibility,4 Cabello-Flores’s conclusory statements do not support appellants’

contention that the Tessmer Law Firm lacked authority to enter into a settlement on

appellants’ behalf. See Chavez, 520 S.W.3d at 900. “Affidavits containing

conclusory statements that fail to provide the underlying facts supporting those

conclusions are not proper summary judgment evidence.” Simons v. Med.

    4
      Accordingly, we need not address appellants’ additional complaint that the trial court erred by
sustaining the Carrillos’ objections to Cabello-Flores’s affidavit. We will not reverse a trial court for an
erroneous evidentiary ruling unless the error probably caused the rendition of an improper judgment. TEX.
R. APP. P. 44.1(a)(1); Starwood Mgmt., LLC, 530 S.W.3d at 678; Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 972
S.W.2d at 43.
                                                  –17–
Hyperbarics, Inc., No. 05-23-00053-CV, 2024 WL 1130833, at *4 (Tex. App.—

Dallas Mar. 15, 2024, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).

      We conclude the Carrillos met their summary judgment burden “to establish

affirmatively that there was no genuine issue of material fact that [the Tessmer Law

Firm] was authorized” to enter into a settlement on appellants’ behalf. See Chavez,

520 S.W.3d at 900. We overrule this portion of appellants’ issue.

                                   CONCLUSION

      The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

230181f.p05                               /Maricela Breedlove/
                                          MARICELA BREEDLOVE
                                          JUSTICE

                                       –18–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                  JUDGMENT

TESSMER LAW FIRM, P.L.L.C.,                    On Appeal from the 429th Judicial
ROSALINDA GOMEZ AND JOSE                       District Court, Collin County, Texas
GUADALUPE GUEL, Appellants                     Trial Court Cause No. 429-03144-
                                               2021.
No. 05-23-00181-CV           V.                Opinion delivered by Justice
                                               Breedlove. Justices Garcia and
JOHNNY CARRILLO, SUZETTE                       Kennedy participating.
CARRILLO AND ISAIAH J.
CARRILLO, Appellees

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

       It is ORDERED that appellees Johnny Carrillo, Suzette Carrillo and Isaiah J.
Carrillo recover their costs of this appeal from appellants Tessmer Law Firm,
P.L.L.C.: Rosalinda Gomez and Jose Guadalupe Guel.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of April, 2024.

                                        –19–