Court Opinion

ID: 9678852
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:34:08.904732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:08.484743
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
concurring.
I concur.
I would affirm the trial court’s judgment because, in my opinion, the agreement dictated to, transcribed by, and signed by the court reporter, and then filed with the papers of the case, is an enforceable rule 11 agreement.
The purpose of rule 11 is to avoid disputes over the terms of oral settlement agreements. Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d *253454, 461 (Tex. 1995). That purpose is served by the parties to the settlement agreement dictating the terms to the court reporter, who transcribes the terms and swears to their accuracy, and then files the transcription with the court. Rule 205 specifically states the manner in which changes to a court reporter’s transcription can be made by the parties to a deposition. Tex. R. Civ. P. 205. In the present case, no changes were made by either party. Defendant has made no claim, either in the trial court or in this Court, that the court reporter’s transcription of the dictated settlement agreement is inaccurate in any way.
The parties jointly dictated what is expressly titled a “Rule 11 Settlement Agreement” to the court reporter. At the time, the parties clearly intended for the agreement to be a “Rule 11” agreement. In compliance with rule, the agreement is (1) in writing; (2) signed;1 and (3) filed with the papers as part of the record. I would hold that, under the circumstances here, the settlement agreement is an enforceable “Rule 11” agreement. The San Antonio Court of Appeals, faced with the same issue, reached the same conclusion. Kosowska v. Khan, 929 S.W.2d 505, 508 (Tex. App. — San Antonio 1996, no writ).
Accordingly, I would overrule point of error one.
I join in the majority’s analysis of defendant’s points of error three and four, and I agree they should be overruled. I do not join in the portion of the majority’s opinion dealing with point of error two.2
HUTSON-DUNN, J., who sat on original submission and continues to sit by assignment, joins this concurrence.

. Rule 11 does not identify who must sign the agreement. Here the agreement was signed by the court reporter, obviously at the direction of the parties who instructed the court reporter to record the agreement.

. Point of error two attacks plaintiffs second ground for summary judgment. In my opinion, plainfiff’s first ground for summary judgment (the existence of and enforceable rule 11 agreement) was meritorious, and therefore summary judgment was proper.