Although a Rule 11 agreement “cannot be used as the basis for an agreed judgment if a party withdraws its consent before the court has rendered a judgment,” the attempt to revoke the agreement under Rule 11 may open to a violation of the contract action. Henry v. City of Fort Worth, 02-09-065-CV (Tex. App.-Fort Worth February 18, 2010, pet. refused) (mem. op.) See also Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 462 (Tex. 1995) (with “measures to enforce a settlement agreement for which consent is revoked must be based on proper documentation and evidence.” A party may revoke its consent; However, revocation cannot mean much if the contract can be applied in terms of contract law. How do you implement a Rule 11 agreement when contentious issues arise or when a party claims to have revoked its consent? The only method available for the application of an agreement under Rule 11 is summary judgment or judicial review. The application of a controversial Rule 11 agreement, simply through an application and hearing, would deprive a party of the right to confront appropriate briefs, to defend themselves, to conduct investigations and to submit contentious factual issues to a judge or jury. Lawyers and parties should be aware that if they do not comply with a Section 11 agreement, the parties sign a cycle of motions that most likely has nothing to do with the fundamental and contentious issues in the case.
A lawyer could agree to let the client deal with it. In the absence of a Rule 11 agreement, there will be no way to enforce it. If the lawyer has signed and contains the essential conditions, it is enforceable. A dishonest person could attempt to evade an oral agreement by mischarging his or her terms. A judge can enforce a contentious agreement in a court action only if it is signed in writing and by counsel or recorded in the minutes. An unrepresented party can sign without a lawyer. “Unless otherwise stated by these rules, no agreement is reached between lawyers or parties affecting a pending action, unless it is written, signed and filed with the documents that are part of the protocol, or if it is not entered into open court and entered into the record.” It is interesting to note, however, that simply sending an email containing a signature block does not necessarily fulfill the requirement to sign Rule 11. If there is no evidence that the signature was entered intentionally and was not automatically generated, there is no agreement signed in accordance with Rule 11.
See Cunningham v. Zurich Am. In the. Co. Therefore, when setting up your email settings to automatically put an electronic signature on outgoing messages, you probably didn`t sign an outgoing agreement under Rule 11 without an explicit agreement being linked to the text of the message. At least with respect to Article 11 agreements, automation does not always mean efficiency. If you are not prepared to accept the risk of losing an agreement in a lawsuit, put it in writing and leave it signed, even if it is handwritten or emailed with typed signatures. Therefore, the removal of a conflict of interpretation with respect to a Rule 11 agreement should begin with a change in the briefs (or a counterclaim) to enforce a violation of contractual rights as a result of the alleged violation of the Rule 11 agreement.
The party seeking to enforce the section 11 agreement must then follow the usual rules of the brief and the evidence (i.e. the request for summary judgment) in order to establish in court that the other party has violated the section 11 agreement. Of course, as with any violation of contractual rights, legal fees may be recovered for such a claim.