A-1 Auto Body and Paint Shop, LLC v. Margaret McQuiggan
418 S.W.3d 403
Tex. App.2013Background
- McQuiggan obtained a small claims judgment against A-1 Auto for $8,672.25; the small claims court set an appeal bond at $17,345.00.
- A-1 Auto’s motion for new trial was denied; the small claims court notified A-1 Auto it had 10 days to post bond and file an appeal in county court.
- A-1 Auto filed an application for writ of certiorari in the county civil court at law after failing to timely post an appeal bond; it argued a witness absence and alleged no admissible evidence supported the judgment.
- McQuiggan moved to dismiss the certiorari application, arguing small claims judgments could be reviewed only by appeal (not certiorari) and noting A-1 Auto failed to perfect an appeal by posting bond.
- The county civil court at law granted the dismissal, denied A-1 Auto’s motion to reconsider, and overruled A-1 Auto’s subsequent motion for new trial by operation of law; A-1 Auto appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (McQuiggan) | Defendant's Argument (A-1 Auto) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a party may challenge a small claims court judgment in county court by writ of certiorari | Certiorari is not available for small claims judgments; relief must be by appeal to county court | Small claims judgments may be reviewed directly by writ of certiorari under former Gov’t Code § 28.052(b) | The writ of certiorari is not an "appeal" under § 28.052(b); county court lacked jurisdiction to consider certiorari and dismissal was proper |
| Whether the small claims judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction because a corporate witness was absent | N/A (plaintiff moved to dismiss jurisdictionally) | Small claims court lacked personal jurisdiction; judgment void | Court declined to reach merits because it had no jurisdiction over the certiorari application; this issue not decided on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Sultan v. Matthew, 178 S.W.3d 747 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005) (distinguishing small claims courts from justice courts)
- Westwood Shores Country Club v. Hendrickson, 395 S.W.3d 298 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013) (certiorari and appeal are cumulative, distinct remedies)
- Crawford v. Siglar, 470 S.W.2d 915 (Tex. Civ. App.—Texarkana 1971) (discussing certiorari as distinct from appeal)
- Ramsey v. Morris, 578 S.W.2d 809 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1979) (writ of certiorari issues only on special cause shown)
- Clark v. Hutton, 28 Tex. 123 (Tex. 1866) (certiorari lies in court's discretion)
- Cluck v. Hester, 521 S.W.2d 845 (Tex. 1975) (appeal and certiorari are not synonymous)
- Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers, 282 S.W.3d 433 (Tex. 2009) (statutory construction principles)