Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:On Feb. 20, 2003, Lois Rose was driving her car with her son John Rose III (John III) as a passenger, when Marcus Dunte Whitaker’s vehicle struck Lois’ car as she entered an intersection. Whitaker’s vehicle hit the Roses’ vehicle on the driver’s side after running a stop sign. Later that evening, Lois and John III experienced pain from the collision. The next day, Lois’ husband John Rose Jr. (John Jr.) took his wife and son to a clinic where they were examined. The doctor prescribed physical therapy and pain medication for both Lois and John III. Lois could not drive and did not return to work for 30 days. John Jr. sought and received time off from work for approximately two and a half weeks to take care of his wife and son at home. The Roses filed their original petition against Whitaker on Nov. 20, 2003. The Roses properly served Whitaker but he failed to answer. The Roses moved for default judgment and the trial court granted their motion. The trial court initially set a date to hear evidence of damages. Instead, it entered the default judgment based upon documentary evidence supplied by the Roses: Lois’ affidavit and supporting documents, including her lost wages report and medical records for herself and John III; and John Jr.’s affidavit and supporting documents, including his lost wages report. The trial court entered the default judgment in the precise amounts requested by the Roses in their affidavits. Whitaker did not file any post-judgment motions, but he did file a restricted appeal one day before the six-month filing deadline. HOLDING:Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part. In his first issue, Whitaker argued that he was entitled to a new trial because the Roses failed to ensure a reporter’s record was produced from a default judgment hearing. Whitaker, the court stated, argued that a reporter’s record is required for a no-answer default judgment, as it is required for a post-answer default judgment. But the court deemed Whitaker’s contention incorrect. In a post-answer default judgment, the court stated, where a defendant filed an answer with the trial court, that defendant does not abandon that answer or confess any issues when he fails to pursue the remainder of the trial. Thus, the court stated, the lack of a reporter’s record in a post-answer default judgment requires reversal. In a no-answer default context, the court stated, judgment can be entered on the pleadings alone and all facts properly pled are deemed admitted. A trial court may award damages in a no-answer default judgment case based on affidavits. Similarly, a trial court may award liquidated damages in a default judgment if it can verify the damages by referring to the allegations in the petition and the written instruments. The court denied Whitaker’s point of error seeking a new trial on grounds that the trial court failed to produce a reporter’s record, because a reporter’s record is not necessary to uphold a no-answer default judgment. Whitaker also attacked several aspects of the default judgment’s award of damages to the Roses. He argued that: the Roses did not prove liability and causation; the evidence of the Roses’ damages was legally and factually insufficient; and he is entitled to a new trial, because the judgment of the trial court failed to distinguish between “reversible and non-reversible damages.” The court stated that documentary evidence accompanying Lois’ affidavit included medical records, two doctors’ reports, pain assessment reports and an itemized statement of services rendered and charges incurred. But the two doctors’ reports, the court stated, do not satisfy the requirements set forth by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code �18.001 for medical reports, because neither report is in the form of an affidavit. Accordingly, the court found that legally insufficient evidence supported the award for reasonable and necessary medical care in the past as to Lois and John III. The court also found that there was no evidence for several other types of damage for which Lois and John III recovered damages, such as future medical expenses, and damages for which John Jr. separately sought recovery, such as loss of consortium. Finally, Whitaker asserted that he was entitled to a new trial, because the trial court failed to distinguish in making its award of damages between types of damages supported by the evidence and types of damages that lacked such support. Whitaker cited an earlier opinion of the 14th Court of Appeals that stated if a default judgment makes a single damage award based on more than one damage element, and if there is no evidence to support the award as to one of the elements upon which the award is based, then the court must reverse and remand the entire award. In the Roses’ case, the court cited a lack of evidence for at least one type of damages that the court awarded. The court stated that it could not determine whether the trial court awarded damages to the Roses based on a type of damage that lacked supporting evidence. Therefore, the court reversed all of the damage awards and remanded the claims for a new trial on unliquidated damages. OPINION:Anderson, J.; Anderson, Edelman and Frost, J.J.

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.