Even emails can be a Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 11. To Green v. Midland Mortg. Co. (App. 14 Dist. 2011) 342 S.W.3d 686, the Houston 14th Court of Appeals ruled in 2011 that the emails and a letter constituted a Rule 11 agreement. Other cases have questioned the validity of electronic signatures.

The deliberate addition of a signature block to an email is probably sufficient for an agreement under Rule 11. But what happens if one party changes their mind before the divorce ends? The answer may depend on how the agreement was reached. A dishonest person might try to circumvent an oral agreement by mis-characterizing its terms. Just because a written exchange complies with Rule 11 does not mean that it is enforceable. It cannot be applied if it does not contain the essential conditions. Rule 11 deals with circumstances in which an agreement is unenforceable. It is not necessary for all the agreements provided for in Rule 11 to be applicable. An agreement may contain the requirements of Rule 11 and still cannot be enforceable for any other reason. As decided in ExxonMobil Corp. v.

Valence Operating Co., a party may revoke its agreement under Rule 11 at any time prior to the transfer of the judgment. A court is not precluded from enforcing an agreement within the meaning of Rule 11 as soon as it has been rejected by one of the parties, but an application for enforcement of an agreement within the meaning of Rule 11, for which consent has been revoked, must be based on correct pleadings and evidence. Any action to enforce a settlement agreement under Rule 11, in which consent is revoked, must be based on adequate pleadings and evidence. If a party withdraws its consent to an agreement in accordance with Rule 11, the counterparty may attempt to enforce the agreement in accordance with Rule 11 of the Treaty. If the acceptance of an agreement has been withdrawn in accordance with Rule 11, a court cannot rule on the settlement agreement, but can only perform it as a written contract. Therefore, the party seeking enforcement must assert a separate right of infringement, subject to the normal rules of memory and evidence. Most of the time, in the context of a dispute, the parties or lawyers communicate their own agreements in accordance with Rule 11. In other cases, the agreements referred to in Rule 11 shall be concluded at the request of the Tribunal. Regardless of what happened after the agreement was negotiated, filed on paper and in court, the parties are bound.

The rule makes sense. If lawyers disagree on who said what or the terms of an agreement, a judge should not have to decide. Honest people often remember details differently. Without a letter, people might understand the details differently at the time the deal is reached. In conversation, details can be embellished or skipped up to avoid tension. Over time, memories can change. “Except as otherwise provided in these rules, no agreement shall be applied between lawyers or parties relating to an action in progress, unless it has been written, signed and submitted with the documents as part of the minutes or is concluded in an open court and recorded in the minutes.” Can a party withdraw its consent to an agreement under Article 11? Maybe. As in ExxonMobil Corp.

vs. Valencia Operating Co.