In Re David J. INGRAM
433 S.W.3d 769
| Tex. App. | 2014Background
- David J. Ingram seeks a mandamus directing the trial court to vacate orders in related probate and civil matters in Harrison County.
- Betty Allen was appointed independent executrix of Betty Lou Ingram’s estate; Ingram challenged her actions and sought removal as executrix.
- The parties entered a Rule 11 settlement distributing Betty’s estate and releasing Allen from liability, with Ingram to receive $40,000 shares and other property.
- Ingram later moved to enforce or set aside the Rule 11 agreement, alleging lack of deed, unpaid sums, and fraud in the inducement; discovery and other relief were sought.
- Allen moved to dismiss civil matters based on the Rule 11 agreement; the trial court issued several orders denying discovery and related relief; mandamus relief was sought but denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus lies to compel enforcement or set aside a Rule 11 agreement. | Ingram argues the agreement should be enforced or set aside due to breach/fraud. | Respondents contend there is an adequate remedy by appeal and no clear abuse of discretion. | Mandamus denied; adequate remedy by appeal exists. |
| Whether mandamus should issue to correct discovery orders post-Rule 11 filing. | Discovery related to claims released by the Rule 11 agreement should be compelled. | Discovery about released claims is improper and subject to appeal after final judgment. | Mandamus denied; relief reserved for direct appeal. |
| Whether mandamus should issue to disqualify counsel or to address discovery refusals on counsel-related issues. | Denial of disqualification and discovery warrants mandamus relief. | Rulings are reviewable on direct appeal; mandamus not warranted where adequate remedy exists. | Mandamus denied; issues reviewable on appeal. |
| Whether the Rule 11 agreement is a binding, enforceable contract and whether relief is precluded by an adequate appellate remedy. | Rule 11 agreement should be enforced or set aside as a binding contract. | There is an adequate remedy by appeal; no mandamus relief for contract validity. | No mandamus relief; remedy by appeal permissible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (enforcement of disputed settlement agreements via amended pleading or counterclaim)
- Castle Tex. Prod. Ltd. P’Ship v., 189 S.W.3d 400 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2006) (remedy by appeal generally precludes mandamus)
- Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1992) (mandamus standard: abuse of discretion and lack of adequate remedy)
- In re Colonial Pipeline Co., 968 S.W.2d 938 (Tex. 1998) (discovery rulings and mandamus when no adequate remedy by appeal)
- In re Fulgium, 150 S.W.3d 252 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2004) (discovery order errors and adequacy of appeal remedy)
- In re Liu, 290 S.W.3d 515 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (record must show mandamus entitlement; show abuse of discretion)