Opinion ID: 2834607
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Availability of Discovery in the Claim for Breach of Settlement Agreement

Text: Written settlement agreements may be enforced as contracts even if one party withdraws consent before judgment is entered on the agreement. Padilla v. LaFrance , 907 S.W.2d 454, 461 (Tex. 1995). When consent is withdrawn, however, the agreed judgment that was part of the settlement may not be entered. Id. at 462. The party seeking enforcement of the settlement agreement must pursue a separate claim for breach of contract. Id. Castillo urges that his motion to enforce the settlement agreement was sufficient as a pleading to support a judgment for breach of contract. See Tex. R. Civ. P . 301 (“The judgment of the court shall conform to the pleadings, the nature of the case proved and the verdict, if any . . . .”). Ford does not contend otherwise. Rather, Ford asserts that it was entitled to conduct discovery and develop its defenses regarding Castillo’s breach of contract claim just as it would have been allowed to do for any breach of contract claim. We agree. Like any other breach of contract claim, a claim for breach of settlement agreement is subject to the established procedures of pleading and proof. Mantas v. Fifth Court of Appeals , 925 S.W.2d 656, 658 (Tex. 1996) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam ). Parties are “entitled to full, fair discovery” and to have their cases decided on the merits. Able Supply Co. v. Moye , 898 S.W.2d 766, 773 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding); see State v. Lowry , 802 S.W.2d 669, 671 (Tex. 1991) (“Only in certain narrow circumstances is it appropriate to obstruct the search for truth by denying discovery.”). A trial court abuses its discretion when it denies discovery going to the heart of a party’s case or when that denial severely compromises a party’s ability to present a viable defense. Able , 898 S.W.2d at 772. The validity of a settlement agreement cannot be determined without “full resolution of the surrounding facts and circumstances.” Quintero v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc. , 654 S.W.2d 442, 444 (Tex. 1983). Because the trial court denied discovery, Ford was unable to develop facts relevant to the presentation of its defense. Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ford the right to conduct discovery on the breach of settlement agreement claim. Castillo further argues that Ford’s request to conduct discovery was an insufficient reason to require the trial court to lift the agreed discovery deadlines. However, the discovery deadlines Castillo refers to pertain to Castillo’s tort action against Ford, not his breach of contract claim. Because the claim for breach of a settlement agreement is a separate cause of action that arose subsequent to the deadlines Castillo references, the discovery deadlines pertaining to Castillo’s tort action have no bearing on the breach of contract cause of action. See Padilla , 907 S.W.2d at 461-62 .