Vickrey v. American Youth Camps, Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 January 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. B--5605,B--5605 |
| Citation | 532 S.W.2d 292 |
| Parties | Betty J. VICKREY, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN YOUTH CAMPS, INC., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Andress, Woodgate & Lodewick, William Andress, Jr., Dallas, for petitioner.
Vance, McMullen, Connally & Robertson, Steve Robertson, Clifton, for respondents.
American Youth Camps, Inc. and Joe Phillips, Jr., Respondents, brought this action against Betty Vickrey, Petitioner. Respondents sought to prevent Mrs. Vickrey from foreclosing, under a deed of trust, on certain real property to which American Youth Camps claimed title, and to remove the deed of trust as a cloud on American Youth Camps' title. Asserting breach of promise by Mrs. Vickrey, they further prayed for recovery of certain funds that American Youth Camps had become obligated to pay Mr. Phillips. Mrs. Vickrey filed a cross-action seeking judicial foreclosure. The parties reached a settlement agreement which was dictated in open court pursuant to Rule 11, Tex.R.Civ.P. At a subsequent date, the trial court entered final judgment, referring to and incorporating the earlier settlement agreement. Complaining that it did not conform to the settlement agreement reached by the parties, Mrs. Vickrey appealed from the entry of this final judgment. The court of civil appeals affirmed the final judgment as entered, holding that Mrs. Vickrey's complaints were without support in the record. 526 S.W.2d 727.
Among other discrepancies complained of, Mrs. Vickrey points out that the settlement agreement provided for Mr. Phillips to receive 63 acres of the property in question and for his execution of a $10,000 note favoring her, while the final judgment as entered awards the 63 acres to American Youth Camps and requires it, rather than Mr. Phillips, to execute the note. A final judgment which is founded upon a settlement agreement reached by the parties must be in strict or literal compliance with that agreement. Wyss v. Bookman, 235 S.W. 567 (Tex.Comm.App.1921); Edwards v. Gifford, 137 Tex. 559, 155 S.W.2d 786 (1941).
Pursuant to Rule 483, Tex.R.Civ.P., the decision of the court of civil appeals being in conflict with the above cited cases, the application for writ of error is granted and, without hearing oral argument, we reverse the judgment of the court of civil appeals and remand the cause to the trial court.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal
...a settlement agreement reached by the parties must be in strict or literal compliance with that agreement. Vickrey v. American Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292, 292 (Tex.1976); Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Auyon, 709 S.W.2d 698, 700 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1986, no writ). The court has no power......
-
In re Lee
...upon a settlement agreement reached by the parties must be in strict or literal compliance with that agreement.” Vickrey v. Am. Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292, 292 (Tex.1976). Just over a year ago, this Court held that when an MSA contained a process for resolution of disputes regarding ......
-
Isbell v. Russell
... ... Clinical Pathology ... Lab'ys, Inc., 343 S.W.3d 885, 891 (Tex. App.-Dallas ... 2011, ... App-Fort Worth 1995, no writ); see also ... Vickrey v. Am. Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292, 292 ... ...
-
Kennedy v. Hyde
...is also to be judged by Rule 11 standards. Williams v. Hollingsworth, 568 S.W.2d 130, 131 (Tex.1978); Vickrey v. American Youth Camps, Inc., 532 S.W.2d 292, 292 (Tex.1976). The court of appeals in the instant case attempts to avoid application of Rule 11 by making a fine distinction, statin......