Green v. Midland Mortgage Co.
342 S.W.3d 686
| Tex. App. | 2011Background
- Greens owned multiple properties, including the 4th Street Texas City property secured by Cenlar; Cenlar acted as loan servicer; Greens filed bankruptcy in 1995 with a discharge in 2000, alleging the Cenlar debt was discharged but the debt was repeatedly reported as delinquent by Cenlar, Aurora, and Midland; Greens sued Midland, Cenlar, Aurora, and later Barrett Burke in 2008, with Barrett Burke added as a defendant in August 2008; settlement discussions occurred in early 2009 resulting in emails and a Rule 11 agreement; May 11, 2009 Greens indicated they did not want to settle, leading to a June 10, 2009 counterclaim for breach of contract and a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on September 4, 2009 enforcing the settlement agreement; the Greens appeal challenging the enforceability of the Rule 11 agreement and the settlement enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Rule 11 agreement to enforce settlement | Greens contend Rule 11 invalid | Rule 11 writing, signatures, filed record; agreement valid | Rule 11 agreement valid; enforceable settlement under Rule 11 |
| Requirement of evidentiary hearing for summary judgment | Evidentiary hearing required | No oral testimony required; written submission sufficient | No evidentiary hearing necessary; summary judgment proper |
| Consent to settlement at time of judgment | No consent to judgment at rendition | Consent not necessary for enforcement of Rule 11 settlement; binding contract enforced | Enforcement of settlement proper despite withdrawal of consent to the terms by Greens later; not an agreed judgment issue |
| Enforceability of settlement based on Rule 11 and email chain | Settlement not enforceable due to issues with consent and execution | Emails plus Rule 11 satisfied writing and terms; enforceable | Settlement enforceable; trial court properly granted enforcement |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (writing requirement for Rule 11 agreements; memorandum must be complete in material terms)
- S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. 1995) (agreed judgments require consent at rendition; distinction from settlement enforcement)
- Burnaman v. Heaton, 240 S.W.2d 288 (Tex. 1951) (consent for judgment; void if consent lacking)
- Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 654 S.W.2d 442 (Tex. 1983) (consent to agreed judgment; withdrawal rights; settlement enforcement via Rule 11)