S & a RESTAURANT CORP. v. Leal
1995 Tex. LEXIS 11, 38 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 303, 892 S.W.2d 855 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judgment is rendered only when a trial court's words clearly and unambiguously express a present intent to issue a final ruling that decides the case, not merely an approval of a settlement or an intention to render judgment in the future.
Facts:
- Annie Marie Leal sued S & A Restaurant Corporation (Steak & Ale) for personal injuries allegedly sustained when a waiter dropped a tray on her, claiming the accident confined her to a wheelchair.
- On May 14, 1991, the parties informed the trial court they had reached a $2 million settlement agreement.
- During the in-court hearing, the judge asked Leal if she wanted him to 'approve the settlement and sign the Judgment,' and concluded the exchange by stating, 'I’ll approve the settlement.'
- One month after the hearing, a legal assistant for Steak & Ale's counsel observed Leal walking without any apparent difficulty in a restaurant.
- Steak & Ale then hired private investigators who videotaped Leal for five days, during which she was never seen using a cane, walker, or wheelchair.
- On June 18, 1991, based on this new evidence, Steak & Ale sent letters to the trial court and Leal's counsel, formally withdrawing its consent to the settlement agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Annie Marie Leal filed a personal injury lawsuit against S & A Restaurant Corporation in a Texas trial court.
- Following an in-court settlement hearing on May 14, 1991, Steak & Ale attempted to withdraw its consent.
- On June 19, 1991, the trial court rejected the withdrawal of consent and signed an agreed judgment against Steak & Ale for $2 million.
- Steak & Ale, the appellant, appealed the judgment to the Texas Court of Appeals.
- The court of appeals, an intermediate appellate court, held that judgment was rendered on May 14 but remanded the case for a hearing on Steak & Ale's motion for a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of Texas, the state's highest court, then reviewed the decision of the court of appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court's oral statement, 'I'll approve the settlement,' made during a hearing, constitute a present rendition of judgment that prevents a party from subsequently revoking its consent to the settlement agreement before a written judgment is signed?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A trial court's oral statement approving a settlement does not constitute a final rendition of judgment unless the words used clearly indicate a present intent to render a final judgment. Here, the trial court distinguished between approving the settlement and the future act of signing the judgment, stating the matter would be 'full, final and complete' only 'once this Judgment is signed.' The court's concluding statement, 'I'll approve the settlement,' was an approval of the agreement itself, not a present rendition of a final judgment. Because judgment had not been rendered, Steak & Ale's revocation of consent on June 18 was timely, making the subsequent written judgment entered on June 19 void.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the critical distinction between a court's approval of a settlement and the formal act of rendering judgment. It establishes a high bar for oral renditions, requiring unambiguous language of present finality to prevent parties from being bound before a judgment is officially made. The ruling protects a party's right to withdraw consent up until the moment of rendition, which is significant in cases where new evidence, such as potential fraud, comes to light after an in-court agreement but before the judgment is finalized. This places the burden on trial judges to be explicit if they intend for their oral statements to serve as the final, binding judgment.
