Heblen Kanan, Pharr Plantation Inc. and Pharr Plantation Management Co., Ltd. v. Plantation Homeowner's Association, Inc.
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5083
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Parties disputed control and management of Plantation South Subdivision; Plantations alleged authority to manage via Management, Homeowners counterclaimed for breach of fiduciary duties and related relief.
- On Feb. 8, 2011, the trial court recorded an oral Rule 11 settlement on the record; dispute focused on seven nonpaying lots and timing of assessments.
- Court later enforced the Rule 11 agreement, despite appellants’ withdrawal of consent, and entered judgment enforcing the settlement.
- Appellants moved to abate, enforceability was litigated, and the trial court concluded the Rule 11 agreement was binding and unambiguous.
- Appellants contend the Rule 11 agreement was unenforceable due to revocation, contract defects, and statutory violations; the court denied these challenges.
- The final judgment affirmed enforcement of the settlement and awarded no further relief beyond enforcing the Rule 11 settlement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Rule 11 agreement was enforceable after revocation | Kanan asserts consent was withdrawn before judgment. | Appellees argue the Rule 11 agreement remains enforceable as contract. | Rule 11 agreement enforceable; judgment upheld. |
| Whether the Rule 11 agreement sufficiently described essential terms | Kanan claims missing precise property descriptions and items. | Appellees contend descriptions were sufficient by reference to the plat and pleadings. | Terms sufficient; contract not defective for lack of detail. |
| Whether the Rule 11 agreement violated statute of conveyances or statute of frauds | Oral agreement passing title violated conveyance and fraud statutes. | Not properly raised; pleading defects waived. | Waived; not grounds to overturn enforcement. |
| Whether the court impermissibly supplied terms or created a contract | Court allegedly inserted terms in deeds and use arrangements. | Terms discussed openly; no improper court-creation of terms. | Court did not create or alter essential terms; enforceable as agreed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Rule 11 enforceability requires writing or open-court recording; implied contract principles apply.)
- Kennedy v. Hyde, 682 S.W.2d 525 (Tex. 1984) (Consent to judgment required at time of rendering; cannot sanction after withdrawal.)
- Broderick v. Kaye Bassman Int’l Corp., 333 S.W.3d 895 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011) (Rule 11 contracts must be complete and enforceable without supplying essential terms.)
- ExxonMobil Corp. v. Valence Operating Co., 174 S.W.3d 303 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (Rule 11 context; supports enforcing valid written or recorded settlements.)
- Staley v. Herblin, 188 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2006) (Enforceability of settlements when consent is in dispute; need proper pleading.)