Coale v. Scott
2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 201
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Dispute over an easement culminated in a final judgment in favor of the Scotts recognizing the easement.
- Years after judgment, the Scotts moved the trial court to enforce the judgment, and the court granted it in part, denying a separate motion to enter an order.
- The Scotts subsequently filed a Motion to Enter Order and Enforce Rule 11 Agreement, which related to an agreement signed after the judgment became final clarifying easement terms.
- The trial court granted the motion and approved a Rule 11 Agreement filed March 20, 2009.
- The Coales challenged the trial court’s enforcement of the Rule 11 Agreement as beyond pleneary jurisdiction and as expanding the Scotts’ rights beyond the original judgment.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the Rule 11 agreement could be enforced and that consent withdrawn after execution does not defeat enforcement where the agreement was filed and signed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court have authority to enforce the Rule 11 agreement after plenary jurisdiction expired? | Coales argue lack of jurisdiction to enforce the March 20, 2009 agreement. | Scotts contend a Rule 11 agreement can be enforced despite expiration of plenary jurisdiction, as enforcement is ongoing and permissible. | Yes; court had authority to enforce the Rule 11 agreement. |
| Was the Rule 11 agreement enforceable despite possible withdrawal of consent prior to enforcement? | Coales assert withdrawal of consent nullifies enforcement. | Scotts contend written, signed, and filed Rule 11 agreement remains enforceable regardless of later withdrawal. | Yes; agreement enforceable when filed and signed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Rule 11 enforceability depends on written, signed agreement filed of record)
- West Beach Marina, Ltd. v. Erdeljac, 94 S.W.3d 248 (Tex.App.-Austin 2002) (written and filed accord controls even if withdrawal occurs later)
- Pierson v. Pierson, 596 S.W.2d 176 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980) (contract valid when signed via copies; signatures need not be on a single document)
- Arndt v. Farris, 633 S.W.2d 497 (Tex. 1982) (courts retain power to enforce final judgments)
- Custom Corporates v. Security Storage, Inc., 207 S.W.3d 835 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2006) (continuing authority to enforce judgments)
- Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline v. DeNisco, 132 S.W.3d 211 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) (enforcement context of Rule 11 considerations)