of rule 11 and the common law that ordinarily apply to the enforcement of settlement agreements do not apply to mediated settlement agreements in divorce proceedings, if the agreements meet the three requirements listed in section 6.602(b). See Cay an, 38 S.W.3d at 166 (stating that section 6.602 was enacted to create a procedural short cut for the enforcement of mediated settlement agreements in divorce cases). We hold that the phrase “notwithstanding rule 11 or another rule of law” does not require a trial court to enforce a mediated settlement agreement simply because it complies with section 6.602(b), irrespective of what the agreement provides for or how it was procured. See In re Kasschau, 11 S.W.3d 305, 311 (Tex.App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) (op. on reh’g) (<HOLDING>); see also Cayan, 38 S.W.3d at 166 n. 8. We
holding that trial court did not err by refusing to enforce mediated settlement agreement that contained an illegal provision holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it holding that a court may only enforce a settlement agreement if it constitutes an enforceable contract holding that trial court did not err holding that the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue