Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This is a restricted appeal by Dennis Frazier of a default judgment rendered against him and other defendants. Mike Dikovitsky filed suit against John Frazier, James Frazier and Dennis Frazier, doing business as East Fork Dine and Dance Inc., for injuries sustained by him while at that establishment. Dikovitsky alleged he was struck with a barstool and knocked to the ground during an altercation between third parties. He alleged the defendants were negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to intoxicated third parties, failing to provide adequate security, and failing to train employees in proper safety, security and protection procedures. A hearing was held April 16, 2003, at which time the trial court took judicial notice that citation had been served on Dennis Frazier and John Frazier Feb. 6, 2002, and that no answers had been filed. Dikovitsky testified at that hearing regarding his injuries. A default judgment in favor of Dikovitsky, in the amount of $95,000, and against all defendants, was signed by the trial court June 30, 2003. On Aug. 7, 2003, Dennis Frazier filed an original answer and an untimely motion for new trial. None of the other defendants filed an appearance in the trial court or appealed the default judgment to this court. HOLDING:Reversed and remanded. To successfully attack a default judgment by restricted appeal, an appellant must: 1. file the restricted appeal within six months after the final judgment is signed; 2. be a party to the suit; 3. have not participated at trial; and 4. demonstrate error apparent from the face of the record. Quaestor Invs. Inc. v. State of Chiapas, 997 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1999) The return of citation shows that Biff Chapman, a private process server, served the citation on Frazier at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 6, 2002. The return of service is properly completed and signed by the server, but the court finds nothing on either the certificate or any accompanying document that could be considered a verification on the return of the service of citation. Because the face of the record fails to show strict compliance with the rules of civil procedure, the court concludes Frazier has satisfied the fourth requirement of his restricted appeal. The court holds that service of process on Frazier was invalid and of no effect. Dikovitsky contends Frazier waived any objection to the service of citation when he filed a post-judgment answer. Dikovitsky contends that Frazier’s answer, even though it was post-judgment, submitted Frazier to the jurisdiction of the trial court and constituted a general appearance. This court has previously held that a general appearance after a default submits the party to the jurisdiction of the trial court, but it does not breathe life into a voidable judgment. Copystatics Inc. v. Bourn, 694 S.W.2d 613 (Tex. App. — Texarkana 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) In addition, nothing in Frazier’s general answer could be construed as conceding he was duly served. OPINION:Ross, J.; Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.