1 Coventry Court, LLC, which owns a vacant lot subject to The Downs of Hillcrest Residential Association's covenants, became embroiled with the Association in a dispute over a fence.¹ On April 26, 2022, the day trial was set to begin, the parties signed a partly printed-email, partly handwritten document that provided they would "execute a full and final settlement agreement and release of all claims and defenses asserted in the lawsuit"; the Association calls it a binding settlement agreement and Coventry says it was only a nonbinding "agreement to agree".² The Association sent a draft settlement agreement it said mirrored the April terms, Coventry refused to sign, and each side proposed its own version.³ At a June 2022 hearing Coventry's attorney described a "tentative" settlement agreement pending a survey, while the Association argued the April agreement was already fully enforceable.⁴

The trial court signed the Association's proposed judgment incorporating the April agreement and ordering the parties to execute a full and final settlement agreement; Coventry's motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law.¹ When Coventry refused to sign the Association's version, the court held it in contempt, fined it $15,000, ordered it to sign that version within five days, and ordered its managers to show cause why they should not be incarcerated; Coventry's managers signed in October 2022 and Coventry timely appealed.² The Fifth Court of Appeals (Dallas) dismissed the appeal on August 27, 2024, holding that Coventry relinquished its appellate rights by signing the October agreement, which it found enforceable as a Rule 11 agreement.³ The Court granted review and, without oral argument, reversed and remanded on January 9, 2026.⁴

Petition for review from the Fifth Court of Appeals, granted and decided by per curiam opinion without oral argument on January 9, 2026.⁵

Coventry's issue is whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to decide its appeal despite the October agreement, a post-judgment agreement it says it signed involuntarily and under threat of contempt.¹ The Association presents four issues: that the court of appeals lost jurisdiction because Coventry released all claims including its appeal rights, that dismissal was proper, that Coventry agreed to the April and October agreements and did not withdraw its consent before the final judgment, and that Coventry is judicially estopped by its own motion to enforce the judgment.²

Appellate courts have the inherent power and the obligation to ascertain their own jurisdiction, and when jurisdiction is challenged they review the whole record for evidence that supports it.¹ When a party claims an appellate waiver is invalid, the "threshold task" is to decide whether the parties have an enforceable Rule 11 agreement to waive appeal.²

Whether the October agreement deprived the court of appeals of jurisdiction.

Petitioner (Coventry): The October agreement was not voluntary, because Coventry signed only after the trial court found it in noncompliance and threatened its managers with incarceration; compliance with Rule 11 formalities does not dispense with mutual assent, and a settlement obtained under coercion does not moot an appeal.¹ The contempt order is void because the managers were never personally served, and it enforced a final judgment that is itself on appeal and alleged to be void for lack of consent; the October agreement also materially departs from the April agreement.²

Respondent (the Association): The appeal is controlled by a single narrow question, whether the October agreement was voluntary, and Coventry concedes a valid, voluntary settlement may deprive a court of jurisdiction; Coventry agreed to the April and October agreements and did not withdraw consent before the final judgment, and its later motion to enforce the judgment shows settler's remorse.³

Coventry argued that compliance with a court order cannot deprive a litigant of its appellate rights, especially when the order itself is void, and that the case should be remanded for the court of appeals to reach the merits.¹ The Association answered that the petition does not present a question of law important to the jurisprudence of the State and shows only settler's remorse.²

None

Holding

A court of appeals may not summarily dismiss an appeal because the appellant supposedly waived appellate rights in a settlement agreement it contends is invalid; it must first ascertain the facts to determine whether its jurisdiction was terminated.¹

Reasoning

The right to appellate review may be waived by agreement, but when the validity of the putative waiver is contested, the court of appeals must "ascertain the facts" to determine whether its jurisdiction was terminated.² Coventry plainly contested the settlement agreement's validity: it objected in the trial court that the parties had not executed a final agreement, moved for new trial on that ground, and argued in the court of appeals that no enforceable agreement existed and that the consent judgment was void for lack of consent.³ That was enough to require a more searching inquiry, and the court of appeals erred by accepting the settlement agreement at face value and treating its waiver as conclusive, thereby refusing to consider the agreement's validity because the very same agreement foreclosed it.⁴

The Court did not decide the merits, including whether the judgment is void, whether Coventry was coerced, whether the April document is an enforceable settlement, or whether a valid Rule 11 agreement was executed, because it is a court of review, not of first view.⁵

Disposition

Petition granted under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 59.1, the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the appeal reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.⁶

Vote Breakdown

Per Curiam Opinion

Joined by Blacklock, C.J., and Bland, Busby, Devine, Hawkins, Huddle, Lehrmann, Sullivan, and Young, JJ.