in Re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d 256

Background

Vaishangi, Inc. and related parties took a commercial loan from Southwestern National Bank secured by hotel property; dispute led to foreclosure and Vaishangi sued for breach and wrongful foreclosure in Harris County.
Parties signed a handwritten, filed Rule 11 settlement agreement (signed by parties and the trial court) that referenced a loan-modification agreement; the attached modification was unsigned and parties later disputed whether Plaintiffs had approved it before filing.
Four days after the Rule 11 agreement was filed, the trial court signed an order dismissing all claims; the dismissal order did not incorporate the full Rule 11 agreement.
Months later, after disagreements over terms and foreclosure, the Bank filed a motion to enforce the Rule 11 agreement in the previously dismissed Harris County case (almost 11 months after dismissal), asking for damages or an order compelling execution of the modification.
The trial court granted the Bank’s post-judgment motion to enforce without hearing evidence; Vaishangi sought mandamus relief arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because its plenary power expired 30 days after the dismissal.
The Supreme Court of Texas held the Rule 11 agreement was not itself an agreed judgment, the dismissal order was the court’s final judgment, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the settlement post-plenary period; mandamus was conditionally granted to vacate the enforcement order.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the filed Rule 11 agreement constituted a final agreed judgment	Vaishangi: It was only a settlement agreement; final dismissal order was the judgment, so court lost plenary power after 30 days	Bank: The Rule 11 agreement was a final judgment disposing of all claims, so court retained enforcement power	Held: The Rule 11 agreement was not an agreed judgment; the dismissal order was the final judgment
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement 11 months after dismissal	Vaishangi: No—plenary power expired 30 days after dismissal, so post-judgment enforcement exceeded jurisdiction	Bank: Court retained jurisdiction because the filed Rule 11 was a judgment and could be enforced under Rule 308	Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction; it exceeded authority by enforcing the settlement after plenary period
Proper procedural route to enforce a non-judgment settlement	Vaishangi: Enforcement must be pursued as a separate breach-of-contract claim in a new action	Bank: Urged enforcement as post-judgment remedy in original case	Held: If settlement is not an agreed judgment, enforcement requires a separate breach action; post-judgment motion cannot reinvest jurisdiction after plenary power expired
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate without showing lack of adequate appellate remedy	Vaishangi: Mandamus appropriate because the order was void for lack of jurisdiction	Bank: Mandamus improper because factual disputes exist and appellate remedies should suffice	Held: Mandamus proper because trial court issued an order beyond its jurisdiction; relief granted conditionally without requiring proof of inadequate appellate remedy

Key Cases Cited

Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1996) (distinguishing Rule 11 agreements from agreed judgments)
Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (announcement of agreement on record does not itself constitute judgment)
S & A Rest. Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex. 1995) (trial court words must clearly indicate intent to render judgment when approving settlement)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (standard for finality of judgment)
Bison Bldg. Materials, Ltd. v. Aldridge, 422 S.W.3d 582 (Tex. 2012) (defining when judgment is final)
Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 279 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2009) (breach of settlement must be pursued as separate contract claim if settlement is not an agreed judgment)
In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602 (Tex. 2000) (mandamus proper when trial court issues order beyond its jurisdiction)
In re John G. & Marie Stella Kenedy Mem'l Found., 315 S.W.3d 519 (Tex. 2010) (trial court exceeds jurisdiction when acting after plenary power has lapsed)