we are not required to construe section 153.0071 to dispose of this appeal, we limit our discussion to section 6.602. However, we note that the wording of sections 6.602(b)-(c) and 153.0071(d)-(e) is identical. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 6.602(b)-(c), 153.0071(d)-(e). Ordinarily, settlement agreements arising from mediation are not binding where one party withdraws consent to the agreement, unless the other party successfully sues to enforce the settlement agreement as a contract that complies with rule 11 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 154.071(a) (Vernon 1997) (providing that settlement agreements arising from mediation are enforceable in the same manner as any other written contract); Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454, 461-62 (Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>); Alcantar v. Okl. Nat’l Bank, 47 S.W.3d 815,
holding that a trial courts hearing on crossmotions to render an agreed judgment on a repudiated rule 11 agreement does not constitute an action to enforce a settlement agreement  based on proper pleading and proof as required by padilla 907 sw2d at 462 holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that once consent to settlement agreement is withdrawn agreement can only be enforced as a binding contract that complies with rule 11 as established by proper pleading and proof holding settlement agreement can be enforced as contract even when party prevents settlement from becoming judgment and holding defending party can assert defenses to contract enforcement holding that confirmation of a chapter 11 plan creates a binding contract which may be enforced in state courts