Adib C. Rouhana v. Alberto Ramirez
556 S.W.3d 472
Tex. App.2018Background
- Ramirez sued Rouhana on a $30,000 promissory note for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud; petition attached the note and payment schedule.
- Rouhana, appearing pro se, filed a general denial and a sworn claim that the debt was paid by services; he listed a street mailing address and a Gmail address in his answer.
- The court set a non-jury trial for Sept. 28, 2016. Certified-mail notice from the court was returned "Return To Sender Unclaimed Unable to Forward."
- Ramirez served a Certificate of Readiness by email to an address not matching Rouhana’s listed Gmail; counsel received an automated reply from a different Rouhana-related address.
- Rouhana did not appear; trial court entered a post-answer default judgment awarding $36,922, $2,500 in attorney’s fees, and a prohibition on removing assets from El Paso County. Ramirez put on no trial evidence.
- Rouhana timely moved for new trial asserting lack of notice; no hearing was held and the motion was overruled by operation of law. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ramirez) | Defendant's Argument (Rouhana) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of evidence for money judgment | Rule 241 permits judge to assess liquidated claim; judgment proper despite default | Post-answer default requires plaintiff to present evidence; Rouhana’s answer preserved issues | Reversed: Ramirez offered no evidence at trial; judgment legally insufficient |
| 2. Injunctive prohibition on asset transfers | Order is permissible to enforce judgment | No pleading or proof sought injunctive relief; court exceeded pleadings | Reversed: court entered relief not pleaded or supported by evidence |
| 3. Attorney’s fees award | Fees awarded with judgment | Fees are unliquidated and require evidence of reasonableness/necessity | Reversed: no evidence supported $2,500 fee award |
| 4. Motion for new trial (lack of notice) | Service by email and auto-reply show actual notice; certified mail attempt suffices | Certified mail was returned unclaimed; Rouhana swore he had no notice; Rule 245 notice not given | Reversed: trial notice not proved; lack of notice satisfies Craddock first factor and Rule 245 violated; new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1979) (distinguishes no-answer and post-answer default judgments; post-answer default does not admit facts and requires proof)
- Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. 1987) (applies Craddock test to post-answer defaults)
- Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922 (Tex. 2009) (legal insufficiency in post-answer default supports new trial, not rendition)
- Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. 2005) (lack of notice to a party who has appeared satisfies Craddock’s first factor and implicates due process)
- LBL Oil Co. v. International Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (party who has appeared is entitled to notice of trial as a matter of due process)