William Edwards and Lynda Edwards v. Entergy Texas, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 25, 2025
• Docket: 09-23-00366-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

________________

NO. 09-23-00366-CV ________________

WILLIAM EDWARDS AND LYNDA EDWARDS, Appellants

V.

ENTERGY TEXAS, INC., Appellee ________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-07-10538-CV ________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants William Edwards and Lynda Edwards complain the trial court

erred by granting summary judgment for Appellee Entergy Texas, Inc. and ordering

that they take nothing on their claim for breach of contract. In their sole issue, the

Edwardses argue the parties’ Agreed Motion for Entry of Final Judgment and

attached Final Judgment and Agreed Permanent Injunction (the Proposed Judgment)

filed in a prior lawsuit is an enforceable Rule 11 agreement despite Entergy’s non-

suiting its underlying claims before the trial court could rule on the unresolved issues

1 in the Proposed Judgment. Because the Proposed Judgment the Edwardses submitted

to the trial court was not the version of the document Entergy approved, the Proposed

Judgment is not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement. We conclude the trial court did

not err by granting summary judgment in Entergy’s favor and affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

BACKGROUND

Entergy’s Prior Lawsuit

The Edwardses’ property is burdened by a utility easement that permits

Entergy to trim or cut down trees that endanger power lines running along the

easement. Entergy filed suit against William Edwards and sought a restraining order

for William’s alleged interference in Entergy’s use of the easement. The trial court

ordered mediation and signed an order stating the parties needed to define the code

of conduct for Entergy’s service visits to the property and that the trial court would

resolve any post-mediation disagreements. After mediation, the Edwardses

submitted the Proposed Judgment to the trial court.

The Proposed Judgment is a redlined document that includes the parties’

comments concerning their unresolved issues to help the trial court rule on those

issues. The record shows Entergy approved “the last iteration” of the Proposed

Judgment and agreed that the Edwardses’ counsel could sign and submit “the last

iteration” on Entergy’s behalf. Although the Agreed Motion for Entry of Final

2 Judgment states that the “last proposed iteration” was attached for the trial court’s

consideration, the record shows the Proposed Judgment is not the “last iteration” as

it includes additional changes made by the Edwardses’ counsel.

After the Edwardses submitted the Proposed Judgment, Entergy filed a brief

with the trial court explaining its position on the unresolved issues and requesting

that the trial court adopt its proposed language concerning the unresolved issues.

Entergy complained that some of the restrictions the Edwardses included in the

Proposed Judgment exceeded the trial court’s instructions which intended for the

parties to reach an agreement governing how the parties would interact when

Entergy used the easement. According to Entergy, the Edwardses’ position

significantly curtailed its easement rights. The Edwardses filed a response to

Entergy’s brief and asked the trial court to review the comments in the Proposed

Judgment in ruling on the unresolved issues. Before the trial court was set to consider

the Proposed Judgment, Entergy non-suited its lawsuit against William.

The Edwardses’ Current Lawsuit

The Edwardses filed a breach of contract claim against Entergy seeking

specific performance of their agreement to submit the Proposed Judgment for the

trial court to rule on the parties’ unresolved issues concerning Entergy’s use of the

easement. The Edwardses alleged the Proposed Judgment qualifies as a Rule 11

agreement because it is in writing, signed by the parties’ counsel who had authority

3 to do so, and filed with the trial court. The Edwardses complained that Entergy

breached its agreement to submit their unresolved issues to the trial court by non-

suiting its claims.

The Edwardses and Entergy filed competing motions for summary judgment.

The Edwardses argued the Proposed Judgment is a Rule 11 agreement and a binding

contract that is enforceable through specific performance. Entergy argued the

Edwardses’ breach of contract claim fails as a matter of law because the Proposed

Judgment is not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement because it is not “the last

proposed iteration” Entergy approved but an altered version that the Edwardses

submitted without its knowledge.

The Edwardses filed a response to Entergy’s motion for summary judgment

and argued that the comments and revisions they added immediately before

submitting the Proposed Judgment to the trial court did not alter the body of the

document or the parties’ agreement to submit unresolved issues to the trial court.

The Edwardses argued that two days after they submitted the Proposed Judgment,

Entergy filed a brief with the trial court explaining its position on the unresolved

issues and that the brief served the same function as their additional comments.

Entergy also filed a response, arguing there is no Rule 11 agreement because both

parties did not accept, sign, and file the Proposed Judgment that the Edwardses

altered without its knowledge or approval. Entergy argued that the comments the

4 Edwardses added were substantive and pertain to the unresolved issues the trial court

was to resolve.

The trial court granted summary judgment in Entergy’s favor without

specifying the basis for its ruling. The trial court denied the Edwardses’ competing

motion and ordered that the Edwardses take nothing on their claims against Entergy.

ANALYSIS

The Edwardses complain the trial court should have granted summary

judgment in their favor because Entergy repudiated their agreement to submit the

Proposed Judgment to the trial court by non-suiting its claims against William to

prevent the trial court from entering judgment on the unresolved issues. The

Edwardses argue the Proposed Judgment is an enforceable Rule 11 agreement and

that Entergy did not present a valid basis for the trial court to find the agreement was

unenforceable.

The Edwardses maintain that Entergy judicially admitted in its motion for

summary judgment that it approved filing the Proposed Judgment based on the

Edwardses’ representation that it would include the “last iteration” of the Proposed

Judgment as finally edited by Entergy. The Edwardses argue they submitted the “last

iteration” of the Proposed Judgment, which was not substantively changed because

they did not alter the body of the Proposed Judgment and only added comments in

the margins. The Edwardses maintain that since the parties agreed to have the trial

5 court review the body of the Proposed Judgment to rule on the unresolved issues,

the comments they added in the margins are immaterial and have no bearing on the

Proposed Judgment’s enforceability. According to the Edwardses, they had no

agreement which prevented the parties from adding comments for the trial court’s

consideration, and even if there had been, Entergy waived its complaint and ratified

the Proposed Judgment by submitting supplemental briefing.

Entergy argues there was no Rule 11 agreement because the parties never

agreed on the version of the Proposed Judgment that would be submitted to the trial

court. Entergy contends that the Edwardses rejected the “last iteration” of the

Proposed Judgment Entergy agreed to, edited the agreed version without Entergy’s

knowledge or approval, electronically signed on Entergy’s behalf, and filed it with

the trial court. Entergy argues there was no agreement in writing because the

Proposed Judgment lacks an essential term of a contract–a meeting of the minds

about what version of the Proposed Judgment would be submitted to the trial court.

We review an order granting summary judgment de novo. Nassar v. Liberty

Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 508 S.W.3d 254, 257 (Tex. 2017). In our de novo review, we

review the evidence presented in the motion and the response in the light most

favorable to the nonmovant, crediting favorable evidence to the nonmovant if

reasonable jurors could, and disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable jurors

could not. Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844,

6 848 (Tex. 2009); City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802, 827 (Tex. 2005). The

party moving for a traditional motion for summary judgment bears the burden of

showing no genuine issue of material fact exists and that he is entitled to judgment

as a matter of law on the issues set out in the motion. Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(c); Nassar,

508 S.W.3d at 257. A matter is conclusively established if ordinary minds could not

differ as to the conclusion derived from the evidence. Triton Oil & Gas Corp. v.

Marine Contractors & Supply Inc., 644 S.W.2d 443, 446 (Tex. 1982). When, as is

the case here, both sides move for summary judgment and the trial court grants one

and denies the other, we review the summary-judgment evidence presented by both

sides and determine all of the questions presented. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d at 848.

“A settlement agreement must comply with Rule 11 to be enforceable.” See

Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995). However, a court cannot

render a valid agreed judgment absent consent at the time it is rendered. Id. at 461.

Generally, that means the agreement between the attorneys or parties must be “in

writing, signed and filed with the papers as part of the record[.]” Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.

The signature requirement safeguards against disputes over whether the parties

mutually consented to the written agreement. See Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen, 221

S.W.3d 632, 635 (Tex. 2007). Here, there is nothing in the record showing Entergy

signed or otherwise assented to the Proposed Judgment the Edwardses submitted to

the trial court or that Entergy’s counsel authorized the Edwardses’ counsel to sign

7 the Proposed Judgment on its behalf. Instead, the record shows Entergy’s counsel

authorized the Edwardses’ counsel to electronically sign and submit the “last

iteration” of the Proposed Judgment on Entergy’s behalf. Because the record shows

the Proposed Judgment is not the “last iteration” Entergy authorized the Edwardses’

counsel to electronically sign on its behalf, the Edwardses’ counsel did not have

authority to sign the Proposed Judgment on Entergy’s behalf. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 11.

In addition, any prior consent was withdrawn before the presentation for the trial

court’s signature as evidenced by Entergy’s nonsuit. See Padilla, 907 S.W.2d at 461-

62.

We conclude the Proposed Judgment is not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement

because it was not signed by Entergy. We overrule the Edwardses’ sole issue and

affirm the trial court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.

JAY WRIGHT Justice

Submitted on July 8, 2025 Opinion Delivered September 25, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.