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 in which the appellants, Araceli and Jose Armendariz, seek to set aside a default judgment based on defective service of process. HOLDING:Vacated and remanded. A restricted appeal 1. must be brought within six months of the date of judgment; 2. by a party to the suit; 3. who did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and who did not file a timely post-judgment motion; and 4. the error must be apparent from the face of the record. Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 30. Appellants argue that the error apparent on the face of the record is appellee’s defective service of process. Appellants assert that the evidence before the trial court at the time of the default hearing reflects that the returns of citation were unverified. The rule at issue provides, in relevant part, as follows: The return of the officer or authorized person executing the citation shall be endorsed on or attached to the same; it shall state when the citation was served and the manner of service and be signed by the officer officially or by the authorized person. The return of citation by an authorized person shall be verified. Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107. The returns of citation show that Gary Thornton served the citation and petition on “Araceli Armendariz 7650 McCallum #1809, Dallas, TX 75252 by attaching securely to the front entry per Rule 106 TRCP at 6:00 p.m. on May 14, 2002″ and “Jose Armendariz 7650 McCallum #1809, Dallas, TX 75252 by attaching securely to the front entry per Rule 106 TRCP at 6:00 p.m. on May 14, 2002.” The court finds nothing on the citation or attached to the citation that could be considered a verification of the return of citation. Appellee submitted an “Affidavit of Service” to the clerk of the 358th Judicial District Court on August 5, 2003, that was executed by Gary Thornton on July 31, 2003, after default judgment was entered and after this appeal was perfected. The court is limited in review to the record as it existed before the trial court at the time the default judgment was rendered. Because the face of the record fails to show strict compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the court concludes appellants have satisfied the fourth requirement. Service of process on appellants was invalid and of no effect. OPINION:Richard Barajas, C.J.; Barajas, C.J., Larsen and Chew, JJ.

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

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 1 article* 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?

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.


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 © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.