MTGLQ Investors, LP and Newrez LLC D/B/A Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC F/K/A Quicken Loans, LLC F/K/A Quicken Loans, Inc.

2026-08-20

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court vacated the trial court's judgment without regard to the merits and remanded the case to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement.

The parties to this appeal—MTGLQ Investors, LP and Newrez LLC d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing on one side, and Rocket Mortgage, LLC on the other—jointly moved the court to approve an agreed judgment settling all issues in the case. They sought entry of the agreed judgment under one of the appellate rules governing settlement disposition. Although the parties filed a joint motion and proposed judgment, they did not submit the settlement agreement itself bearing the required signatures, creating a procedural defect.

The appellate court declined to grant the motion under the specific rule the parties appeared to invoke due to this omission and other concerns. However, to promote judicial efficiency, the court invoked an alternative procedural mechanism that would allow the trial judge to oversee entry of the final judgment consistent with the parties' settlement terms. Under this approach, the trial court could use its familiarity with the case to ensure proper implementation of the agreement.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Proper procedural requirements for appellate disposition of settled cases
Effect of missing settlement agreement signature requirement
Court authority to invoke alternative settlement disposition rules sua sponte

Procedural posture

The case was originally appealed to the Ninth Court of Appeals but was transferred to the Sixth Appellate District by the Texas Supreme Court for docket management purposes.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-26-00045-CV

MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP AND NEWREZ LLC D/B/A SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE

SERVICING, Appellants

ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC F/K/A QUICKEN LOANS, LLC F/K/A QUICKEN LOANS,

INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 60th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 25DCCV0999

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Rambin

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 11, 2026, Appellants, MTGLQ Investors, LP and Newrez LLC d/b/a

Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, and Appellee, Rocket Mortgage, LLC f/k/a Quicken Loans, LLC

f/k/a Quicken Loans, Inc, filed a joint motion for entry of agreed judgment pursuant to Rule

42.1(a)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2). In their

motion, the parties state that they have reached a settlement agreement that fully resolves all of

the issues in this appeal. They asked this Court to effectuate the terms of their settlement

agreement by entering an agreed judgment, thereby disposing of this appeal.

Although the parties do not specifically state in their motion whether they are proceeding

pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A), (B), or (C), it appears from the language in their prayer for relief

that they seek to proceed pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A). See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A).

Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A) states that an appellate court may dispose of an appeal “[i]n accordance with

an agreement signed by the parties or their attorneys and filed with the clerk,” and thereafter

“render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A). Here,

counsel for both parties signed their joint motion for entry of agreed judgment and filed their

proposed agreed judgment, but they did not provide the Court with the settlement agreement

bearing their required signatures.2 Because of this omission, as well as additional concerns, the

Court denies the parties’ joint motion for entry of agreed judgment made pursuant to Rule

42.1(a)(2)(A).

Originally appealed to the Ninth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001 (Supp.). 2

The parties’ joint motion contains at least some, if not all, of the terms of the parties’ agreement.

However, in the interest of judicial efficiency, the Court, on its own motion, will take into

account Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), which states that an appellate court may dispose of an appeal

pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement by “sett[ing] aside the trial court’s judgment

without regard to the merits and remand[ing] the case to the trial court for rendition of the

judgment in accordance with the [parties’] agreement.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B). The

Court acknowledges that Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B) places the same signature requirements on the

parties as Rule 42.1(a)(2)(A). But 42.1(a)(2)(B) also allows the trial judge, who has a

considerable amount of knowledge regarding the facts and history of this case, to oversee the

rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement.

I. Conclusion

Pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(2)(B), and in accordance with the terms of the parties’

settlement agreement, we vacate the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and

remand the case to the trial court for rendition of the agreed judgment in accordance with the

terms of the parties’ settlement agreement. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

Jeff Rambin

Justice

Date Submitted: August 19, 2026

Date Decided: August 20, 2026