Background
Arthur borrowed money from Blackburne to purchase a 16-unit condominium complex in southwest Houston and later defaulted. The parties settled in 2016, agreeing to scheduled payments and an agreed final judgment that could be filed upon another default. The agreed judgment provided for foreclosure and required Arthur to pay $400,000 in liquidated damages if the judgment was filed between July 1, 2017, and July 26, 2018.
After another default, Blackburne filed the agreed judgment on July 27, 2017, and the trial court signed it. The judgment stated that the amount recovered through the property’s sale would not alter the liquidated-damages schedule. Blackburne foreclosed in 2019, and the property was sold at a constable’s sale for $550,000; the opinion does not identify the purchaser. In 2024, Arthur sued for breach of contract and declaratory relief, arguing that no liquidated damages were owed because the sale produced no deficiency and that the provision was an unenforceable penalty. The trial court granted Blackburne’s Rule 91a motion and dismissed the suit.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Arthur’s claims were an impermissible collateral attack on the 2017 agreed final judgment. The time for a direct attack had expired, and a final judgment may be attacked collaterally only if it is void. Arthur did not contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction or that the judgment was otherwise void.
The agreed judgment expressly awarded Blackburne $400,000 upon foreclosure and stated that the sale amount would not change the liquidated-damages schedule. Arthur’s declaratory and breach-of-contract claims sought to avoid those binding terms. The court also held that the penalty defense should have been raised in the original action and that the agreed judgment superseded any inconsistent anticipatory language in the settlement agreement. Because the case was dismissed without a trial or evidentiary hearing, the trial court was not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Key Takeaways
- A party generally cannot use a later declaratory-judgment or contract suit to reinterpret or evade a final agreed judgment.
- Once the deadline for a direct attack expires, only a void judgment—not one alleged to contain a nonjurisdictional error—may be challenged collaterally.
- Findings of fact and conclusions of law are neither required nor appropriate following a Rule 91a dismissal based on the pleadings without a trial or evidentiary hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality of agreed judgments. A party that approves a judgment as to form and substance must timely challenge nonjurisdictional defects, including an allegedly unenforceable liquidated-damages provision, rather than repackaging those objections as later contract and declaratory claims.
It also confirms that Rule 91a can dispose of claims when the pleadings and their permitted exhibits establish a legal bar to recovery, including the prohibition against collateral attacks on final judgments.