Charise Caudle v. Oak Forest Apartments, 02-14-00308-CV

Caudle was a former Oak Forest Apartments tenant; Oak Forest sued for eviction and unpaid rent in justice court. The county court later found Caudle breached the lease and awarded Oak Forest possession and $1,794.22 plus fees (vacate language crossed out).
Caudle moved out before the county-court judgment. She later sued Oak Forest in small claims (asserting FCRA and FHA violations) alleging Oak Forest falsely reported an eviction/judgment to credit bureaus.
A justice-of-the-peace default judgment awarded Caudle $5,000 against Oak Forest; Oak Forest applied for a writ of certiorari to the county court, which was granted because Oak Forest showed it lacked notice of the justice-court trial.
In the county-court proceedings, Oak Forest filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment; Caudle did not file a written response and the trial court granted summary judgment for Oak Forest.
On appeal Caudle argued (1) the writ of certiorari was improper, (2) she lacked service of Oak Forest’s summary-judgment motion (it was mailed to an old address), and (3) Oak Forest’s credit reporting was inaccurate and violated the FCRA. The court rejected each argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether county court abused discretion issuing writ of certiorari after justice-court default judgment	Caudle: Oak Forest received notice and failed to appear, so certiorari was improper	Oak Forest: never received notice of trial; default resulted from lack of notice, not its neglect	Court: Affirmed certiorari; no record evidence of service on Oak Forest, so no reversible error
2. Whether grant of no-evidence summary judgment should be reversed for lack of service of the motion	Caudle: She told opposing counsel of a new address; the motion was mailed to her old address so she never received it	Oak Forest: Motion and notice were served in compliance with Rule 21a (presumption of service); Caudle knew hearing date and did not seek continuance or request the motion	Court: Denied relief; Caudle knew of the hearing and failed to raise lack of service or seek continuance, and her failure to update the court caused missed certified mail
3. Whether there was a fact issue on FCRA/FHA claims because reporting was allegedly inaccurate/no eviction occurred	Caudle: Reports were false; walk-through showed no damage; she was not evicted	Oak Forest: Caudle did not timely present evidence or plead facts showing negligent or willful FCRA violation; no-evidence burden shifted to Caudle to produce proof	Court: Affirmed summary judgment; Caudle failed to respond with evidence to create a fact issue and did not identify how reporting violated FCRA

Cliff v. Huggins, 724 S.W.2d 778 (Tex. 1987) (presumption of service where certificate of mailing complies with rule)
Lewis v. Blake, 876 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. 1994) (how to compute service time for summary-judgment notices served by mail)
Carpenter v. Cimarron Hydrocarbons Corp., 98 S.W.3d 682 (Tex. 2002) (factors when nonmovant is aware of error before or at summary-judgment hearing)
Unifund CCR Partners v. Weaver, 262 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2008) (nonmovant cannot rely on appellate briefing to raise issues waived at summary judgment)
Approximately $14,980.00 v. State, 261 S.W.3d 182 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2008) (declining to impute constructive service where record did not support refusal of delivery)
Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (due-process right to proper service)
A-1 Auto Body & Paint Shop, LLC v. McQuiggan, 418 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013) (writ of certiorari is independent remedy from appeal)