The Houston [14th] Court of Appeals has granted mandamus ordering a trial court to grant a party’s motion to abate a separate proceeding pending resolution of a dispute over the enforceability of a Rule 11 settlement agreement.
In Re Frontier Custom Builders, Inc. and Ronald Wayne Bopp, Jr. (No. 14-25-00548-CV; November 6, 2025) arose from a contract dispute over the purchase of and construction of real property. In December 2020, Frontier sued Michael and Sherrie Glover, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. They further alleges that the Glovers violated the contract by pursuing arbitration. In March 2025, Frontier’s counsel emailed the Glover’s’ counsel proposed Rule 11 settlement agreement. Both parties’ counsel signed the agreement, and it was presented to the trial court with a notice of settlement. The agreement provided that Frontier agrees to pay the Glovers a sum “in full and complete satisfaction of an arbitration award.” It further required that the parties work diligently and exercise best efforts to finalize and execute a formal settlement agreement by a specified date. The date passed with no settlement. The Glovers filed a motion requesting that the court return the case to its docket because settlement negotiations had failed. In June 2025, Frontier filed a similar motion but requested the case be retained until the Rule 11 agreement was enforced through mediation. After the trial court denied Frontier’s motion, Frontier commenced a new trial court proceeding against the Glovers in the same court, seeking damages for the alleged breach of the agreement and specific performance of the Rule 11 agreement. The same day, Frontier filed a motion to abate the original court proceeding until the Rule 11 case was resolved. The TC denied the abatement, which prompted Frontier’s petition for writ of mandamus.
In a per curiam opinion, the court of appeals granted the writ. In Matas v Fifith Court of Appeals, 925 S.W.2d 656 (Tex. 1996), SCOTX dealt with a similar situation. In Mantas, after a party revoked its consent to the settlement, its opponent filed a new suit seeking to enforce the settlement agreement. The court of appeals denied the attempted enforcer’s motion to abate pending the resolution of the enforcement suit. SCOTX held that the court of appeals abused its discretion and granted a mandamus relief. The court further noted that appellate remedies were inadequate for the enforcing party because “they will have lost much of the settlement’s benefit if [they have] been required to expend time and resources in prosecuting the appeal.” Relying on Mantas, the court of appeals concluded that the trial court did, in fact, abuse its discretion by failing to abate the merits case.
The Glovers made two arguments, one focused on the fact that they obtained a favorable arbitration award during litigation prior to the Rule 11 Agreement, and the other that the Rule 11 agreement was already breached by missing the deadline for finalizing the agreement (and for attempting to add new and onerous terms to it). In their first issue, the Glovers primarily argued that the arbitration award itself precluded litigation by Frontier, including efforts to enforce the agreement. The court disagreed, stating that it “[did] not see how a party is barred from enforcing a settlement agreement by the existence of an arbitration award, particularly where the settlement agreement was reached after the arbitration award was provided.” As to the Glovers second point, the court contended that even if those allegations were proven, they do not affect whether enforceability should be resolved before the merits of the parties’ disputes are resolved. Instead, the trial court must resolve whether and to what extent “the rule 11 Agreement should be enforced before it examine[s] the potentially moot issue of how the merits of the parties’ dispute should be resolved.” The court thus granted mandamus.
TCJL Legal Intern George E. Christian researched and prepared this article.
