was not entitled to look to any comments that the judge may have made at the conclusion of a bench trial as being a substitute for findings of fact and conclusions of law.” (citing Tex, R. Civ. P. 296)), The holding in In re W.E.R. applies with even greater force here, where the parties’ claims were tried by a jury rather than by the trial court. In sum, the trial court’s signed orders show that it struck all claims regarding the Rule 11 agreement without ruling on the merits; the final judgment is consistent with those orders; and the record contains no rulings or findings to the contrary. We accordingly conclude that no claims or defenses regarding the Rule 11 agreement were adjudicated. See Davis v. Wickham, 917 S.W.2d 414, 416-17 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (<HOLDING>) (alteration in original). This issue therefore
holding that proof of an explicit agreement is not required 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 the trial courts denial of appellants motion to enforce settlement agreement constituted an important issue 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of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that once consent to settlement agreement is withdrawn agreement can only be enforced as a binding contract that complies with rule 11 as established by proper pleading and proof