MTGLQ Investors, LP and Newrez LLC D/B/A Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC F/K/A Quicken Loans, LLC F/K/A Quicken Loans, Inc.

Opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00045-CV

MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP AND NEWREZ LLC D/B/A SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Appellants

V.

ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC F/K/A QUICKEN LOANS, LLC F/K/A QUICKEN LOANS, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25DCCV0999

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 11, 2026, Appellants, MTGLQ Investors, LP and Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, and Appellee, Rocket Mortgage, LLC f/k/a Quicken Loans, LLC f/k/a Quicken Loans, Inc, filed a joint motion for entry of agreed judgment pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). In their motion, the parties state that they have reached a settlement agreement that fully resolves all of the issues in this appeal. They asked this Court to effectuate the terms of their settlement agreement by entering an agreed judgment, thereby disposing of this appeal.

Although the parties do not specifically state in their motion whether they are proceeding pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B), or (C), it appears from the language in their prayer for relief that they seek to proceed pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) states that an appellate court may dispose of an appeal “[i]n accordance with an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk,” and thereafter “render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). Here, counsel for both parties signed their joint motion for entry of agreed judgment and filed their proposed agreed judgment, but they did not provide the Court with the settlement agreement bearing their required signatures.2 Because of this omission, as well as additional concerns, the Court denies the parties’ joint motion for entry of agreed judgment made pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A).

1 Originally appealed to the Ninth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). 2 The parties’ joint motion contains at least some, if not all, of the terms of the parties’ agreement.

3

However, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court, on its own motion, will take into account Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), which states that an appellate court may dispose of an appeal pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement by “sett[ing] aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand[ing] the case to the trial court for rendition of the judgment in accordance with the [parties’] agreement.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The Court acknowledges that Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) places the same signature requirements on the parties as Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A). But 42.1(a)(2)(B) also allows the trial judge, who has a considerable amount of knowledge regarding the facts and history of this case, to oversee the rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. I. Conclusion Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), and in accordance with the terms of the parties’

settlement agreement, we vacate the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of the agreed judgment in accordance with the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: August 19, 2026 Date Decided: August 20, 2026