Cristobal R. Garcia v. BankAmerica Housing Services, a Division of Bank of America, FSB, f/k/a Security Pacific Housing Services--Appeal from County Court at Law No 5 of Bexar County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-05-00115-CV

Cristobal R. GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

BANKAMERICA HOUSING SERVICES,

A Division of Bank of America, FSB, f/k/a Security Pacific Housing Services,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 5, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 263787

Honorable Karen Crouch, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Sitting: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 19, 2005

AFFIRMED

In the underlying litigation, appellant purchased a manufactured home financed by appellee. When appellant failed to make payments under a retail installment contract, appellee filed suit against appellant. Following appellee s motion for summary judgment, on which the court did not rule, appellee and appellant met to negotiate a Compromise Settlement and Release Agreement ( settlement agreement ). The trial court signed an Agreed Final Judgment on September 20, 2004. This appeal ensued. We affirm.DISCUSSION

Appellant asserts the settlement agreement is invalid because it was not signed and agreed to in front of a third party. According to appellant, only he and appellee s attorney were in the room when the agreement was signed, and a notary was not present. The settlement agreement contains two Verifications, wherein a notary attests to the signatures of appellant and a representative of appellee. Appellant has not denied that he signed the settlement agreement. Nevertheless, appellant contends that the notaries verifications are fraudulent because the notaries were not in the room when the settlement agreement was signed.

Settlement agreements are not enforceable unless the agreement is in writing, signed and filed with papers as part of the record, or . . . made in open court and entered of record. Tex. R. Civ. P. 11. Rule 11 does not require that settlement agreements, of the type at issue here, be entered into in the presence of third parties. Here, the settlement agreement was signed by appellant and a representative of appellee and filed with the clerk of the court on September 20, 2004. Also on September 20th, the trial court signed an Agreed Final Judgment, acknowledging execution of the settlement agreement, noting that the parties had announced that all matters in controversy had been resolved, and incorporating the terms of the settlement agreement. Because the requisites of Rule 11 were satisfied, we overrule appellant s complaints on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment.

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice