OPINION
REX D. DAVIS Justice
Appellant Bill Youngkin, an attorney, represented plaintiffs Buetta and Rajena Scott in a lawsuit that sought to give them ownership of 45 acres that was part of a 285-acre tract in Brazos County.1 The Scotts alleged that they had paid all of the property taxes on the family-owned land and that, because the other heirs had not contributed to paying the taxes, the other heirs should lose their ownership interests. Appellee Billy G. Hines, Jr., one of the defendants in the Scotts' suit, asserted that he had paid all or part of the taxes on the 45 acres.
During trial, the Scotts2 and Hines announced a settlement in open court that was dictated into the record by Youngkin:
MR. YOUNGKIN: Your Honor, we've reached an agreement with Mr. Sargent's client Reverend Hines. That agreement—he is one of the heirs of Alex Scott, and it will be set forth in the judgment. But what he's going to do today, Judge, is we've agreed that he's going to convey his undivided interest in the surface estate of the 285 acres but he's going to retain his mineral interests in that same property.
And I will tell the Court that as part of my client's intention and agreement with Mr. Sargent's client—there is a portion of this property that was deeded to the Scott heirs, 45 acres that has—not a valid description to it but we're going to convey by valid description, the undivided one half interest this judgment would produce so that the Alex Scott heirs would have 100 percent ownership in that 45-acre tract yet to be surveyed with the property description and provide a copy of that survey and that deed to Mr. Sargent before it's filed; and we'll do all this once this judgment becomes final, Judge.
Hines then confirmed that agreement on the record in response to questions from his lawyer:
Q Can you state your name for the record, please?
A Bill Hines.
Q Mr. Hines, did you hear Mr. Youngkin's—what he recited to the Judge?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you understand it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Does that reflect the agreement and understanding that we entered into back in the jury room?
A Yes, it does.
...
Q And it's your understanding that you're conveying only—the surface estate only in the 285-acre tract?
A Yes.
Q Upon the conclusion of this suit the plaintiffs Mrs. Buetta and Rajena Scott are going to convey 50 percent of their interest in the Alex Scott survey back to the heirs of Alex Scott?
A Yes.
Q And at that time you all will own 100 percent of the Alex Scott subject?
A Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. YOUNGKIN: We'll conclude that with a deed as soon as this is over with, Judge.
Your Honor, if—
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
Hines's attorney later drafted a letter agreement to formalize that settlement. The letter provides:
This letter will serve as confirmation of the recital announced in Court on December 15, 2010. My client, Billy G. Hines, Jr. will allow his undivided interest in the original 285.5 acre tract in the J.M. Berrera Survey, Brazos County, Texas to pass to the Plaintiffs, Buetta and Rajena Scott. In exchange, Billy G. Hines, Jr.'s interest in the above-referenced property will be retained in the Alex Scott 45 acre tract of land only (part of 285.5 acre tract). After judgment has been entered, Billy G. Hines, Jr.'s interest will be reinstated by deed from the Plaintiffs, Buetta and Rajena Scott in the 45 acre tract set aside exclusively to the Scott heirs.
If this is not your understanding, please contact my office to discuss this matter. If this letter correctly reflects your understanding, please sign below for filing with the Court pursuant to Rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
The letter agreement was signed by Hines and his attorney and by Youngkin, but not by the Scotts.
Hines alleges that, after the judgment was signed, (1) the Scotts, with Youngkin's deed preparation, conveyed all of their title in the 45 acres to "Curtis Capps, Trustee," and (2) Hines conveyed his interest in the surface estate of the 285 acres to the Scotts, but the Scotts could not perform their part of the settlement agreement of conveying the 45 acres to Hines and to the Alex Scott heirs because the Scotts had already conveyed the 45 acres to Capps. Capps later executed a deed to Hines for only Hines's individual undivided interest in the 45 acres.
Hines then filed suit against the Scotts and Capps, with Hines alleging that the Scotts and Capps (all originally represented by Youngkin) had defrauded him by failing to comply with the settlement agreement that had been announced on the record in the earlier case. Hines seeks to set aside (rescind) the settlement agreement and to cancel the deed that Hines had executed, or in the alternative, to enforce the settlement agreement and to compel the Scotts and Capps to convey the 45 acres to Hines.3
Hines amended his lawsuit to add Youngkin as a defendant and asserted fraud and conspiracy claims against Youngkin.4 The second amended petition specifically alleges in pertinent part:
5. Billy G. Hines, Jr. was induced to enter into an agreement pursuant to Texas Rule of Procedure 11 purportedly to settle the case filed by Buetta and Rajena Scott against him and other Defendants. The agreement was never fully consummated before the filing of this suit. Billy G. Hines revoked his portion of the agreement and filed this suit due to the failure of the Scott Defendants to provide consideration and consummate the agreement. Hines asked [sic ] the Court for a recission [sic ] and cancellation of the deed he had been induced to deliver. The Rule 11 Agreement had called for Hines to execute a deed and in return the Scotts would reciprocate by executing a deed to him individually and for the benefit of the other Scott Defendants. The Scotts, in joint venture or conspiracy with Capps, then used the Rule 11 Agreement to proceed to judgment in the case and the judgment may have not become procedurally "final" as to Hines and the other Scott Defendants. Billy G. Hines executed a deed and delivered it to the attorney for Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott pursuant to the Rule 11 Agreement. The Scott Defendants filed that deed for record. However, instead of completing the Rule 11 Agreement by conveying all of their interest in the 45 acre Scott Tract, the Scott Plaintiffs conveyed their interest in that tract granted by the judgment to Curtis Capps who then inequitably used it against third parties, Hines, and the other Scott heirs in another lawsuit to attempt to oust them of title to such 45 acres of the land in question in this case. This was a fraudulent misrepresentation involving a transaction in real estate.
....
7. ... Plaintiff requests the Court to enforce specific performance of the Rule 11 Agreement made by the Scott Defendants through their attorney, Bill Youngkin and require them and their co-conspirators, Curtis Capps and Bill Youngkin, to convey all of their interest in the 45 acres so that it may be used and enjoyed exclusively by Plaintiff and the other Scott heirs.
8. ... Plaintiff asserts ... an agreement was reached between Bill Youngkin, his client, Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott whereby Billy G. Hines, Jr. agreed he would convey his undivided interest in the surface acres of the entire 285 acres in dispute as consideration for a conveyance from Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott of all their interest in the 45 acres including their interest transferred by Final Judgment in said Cause No. 10–000305–CV–85 in dispute herein and that upon such conveyance from Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott, the Alex Scott Heirs including Plaintiff would have 100 percent ownership in said 45 acre tract.
9. This Rule 11 Agreement as originally agreed to by Plaintiff and Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott and Bill Youngkin was fully stated ... and was dictated into the Court's record. ... Thus, Defendant Capps' deed allegedly given for consideration of fulfillment of that agreement should be reformed so that it will convey all of Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott's interest in the 45 acres that was acquired pursuant to the Judgment in Cause No. 10–000305–CV–85 so that the Scott Heirs will have 100 percent ownership in the 45 acre tract for their exclusive use.
10. Plaintiff was at all times ready, willing and able to perform his part of the contract and has in fact performed. Pursuant to such performance, on March 27, 2011, Plaintiff executed and delivered by general warranty deed to Defendants Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott all of his interest in that certain 285.5 acre tract in the J.M. Barrera Survey, Brazos County, Texas. Defendants however have refused and failed to convey the 45 acre Alex Scott property to Plaintiff, and instead have conveyed all their interest in both the 285.5 acres to Curtis Capps, as well as that portion of the 285.5 acres, subsequently surveyed and described as 44.878 acres a/k/a 45 acres.
....
21. ... Plaintiff asserts that at all times Defendant Bill Youngkin acted as the agent for Defendants Buetta Scott and Rajena Scott and on their behalf made the promises, false representations and inducements at the December 15, 2010 hearing in Cause No. 10–000305–CV in the 85th District Court upon which Plaintiff relied in entering into the Rule 11 Agreement. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bill Youngkin conspired with Defendants in an scheme to deprive Plaintiff of his interest in the 285 acres, that he participated in obtaining the Rule 11 Agreement knowing that Defendants Buetta Capps [sic] and Rajena Capps [s
...
