Court Opinion

ID: 9811504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:22:54.859262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:38.783161
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing

PER CURIAM.
Pending before the court is a motion for rehearing of Tom Upchurch, Jr., Tom Upchurch, Jr. and Associates, and Wayne Barfield (Upchurch and Barfield). Movants inform us that we engaged in “a complete misconstruction of what occurred” when reversing the summary judgment entered below. Furthermore, the “complete misconstruction” involved our application of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 11 to the circumstances depicted in the record. There was no agreement between counsel implicating Rule 11, they continued. Rather, the “statement of concession by” appellants’ counsel was merely “an announcement to the [trial] court that there was no contest....”1 (Emphasis added). Within these words lies the answer to their motion.
Whether an attorney sits down with opposing counsel and the two jointly negotiate a resolution to the dispute is unimportant. Rule 11 and its mandate encompasses a “concession” made by trial counsel in court. See e.g., Michiana Easy Livin’ Country, Inc. v. Holten, 168 S.W.3d 777, 793 (Tex.2005) (holding unenforceable trial counsel’s purported “concession” regarding the forum selection clause since the “concession” went unrecorded); Shepherd v. Ledford, 926 S.W.2d 405, 410 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1996), aff'd, 962 S.W.2d 28 (Tex.1998) (applying Rule 11 to stipulations which included a “concession” by counsel). Moreover, and as quoted above, Upchurch and Barfield themselves described opposing counsel’s conduct as a “concession.” Thus, it had to comport with Rule 11 to be valid. Because it did not, it was and remains unenforceable. We are not unmindful of the age of this case. But, that does not authorize us to ignore Rule 11. Simply put, this court did not misapply Rule 11 via a “complete misconstruction of what occurred.” Thus, we overrule the motion for rehearing.

. Whether Mr. John Lesly, trial attorney for the appellants, had the authority to unilaterally concede the bona fides of the summary judgment motion of Upchurch and Barfield and accede to the entry of judgment against his clients is a question reserved for another day and another forum. Yet, we do note that such authority is neither inherent in nor implied from the mere existence of an attorney/client relationship. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Vidrine, 610 S.W.2d 803, 805 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref’d n.r.e); Johnson v. Back, 378 S.W.2d 723, 725 (Tex.Civ.App.Amarillo 1964, no writ).