The Beaumont Court of Appeals has affirmed a trial court order granting summary judgment to an electric utility in a breach of contract action arising from a dispute over alleged interference with the utility’s maintenance of an easement.
William Edwards and Lynda Edwards v. Entergy Texas. Inc. (No. 09-23-00366-CV; September 25, 2025) arose from a dispute over a utility easement permitting Entergy to trim or cut down trees that endanger power lines. As a result of William Edwards’ alleged interference in Entergy’s use of the easement, Entergy filed suit and sought a restraining order. The trial court ordered mediation and required the two parties to draft a proposed code of conduct for Entergy’s future service visits to the property. Following mediation, the Edwardses submitted a proposed judgment to the trial court. This redlined document included the parties’ comments concerning unresolved issues to assist the trial court in making a final ruling. The record showed that Entergy approved “the last iteration” of the document, and Entergy agreed that the Edwardses’ counsel could sign and submit it to the court on its behalf. But the proposed judgment their counsel submitted included his additional comments in the margins. Entergy filed a brief explaining its position on unresolved issues and requesting the court adopt is proposed language, complaining that the Edwardses’ position curtailed their easement rights. The Edwardses filed a response, but before he trial court could consider the proposed judgment, Entergy non-suited its lawsuit.
The Edwardses promptly filed a breach of contract claim against Entergy seeking specific performance of their agreement to submit the proposed judgment to the trial court to rule on the unresolved issues. They alleged that the proposed judgment qualified as a Rule 11 agreement because it was in writing, was signed by the parties’ counsel, and filed with the trial court. The breach of the agreement to submit unresolved issues to the trial court, the Edwardses argued, allegedly occurred when Entergy non-suited its claims. Both parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Entergy argued that the proposed judgment was not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement because it was not the “last proposed iteration.” The trial court granted Entergy’s motion and denied the Edwardses competing motion.
In an opinion by Justice Wright, the court of appeals affirmed. Observing that “[a] settlement agreement must comply with Rule 11 to be enforceable,” the court determined that “a court cannot render a valid agreed judgment absent consent at the time it is rendered.” Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 460 (Tex. 1995). Despite the Edwardses’ insistence to the contrary, the court found no indication that Entergy signed or assented to the proposed judgment that had been submitted to the trial court. Entergy authorized the Edwardses’ counsel to electronically sign and submit the “last iteration,” not the document he submitted. He thus had no authority to sign on Entergy’s behalf. Additionally, the court ruled, “any prior consent was withdrawn before the presentation for the trial court’s signature as evidenced by Entergy’s nonsuit.” The proposed judgment was therefore not an enforceable Rule 11 agreement, and the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of Entergy.
TCJL Intern Satchel Williams researched and prepared the first draft of this article.
