Citibank N.A. and Allen L. Adkins v. Don M. Estes, 385 S.W.3d 671

Citibank pursued collection of delinquent balances on two credit cards owned by Estes in Galveston County, Texas.
The trial court granted substituted service under Rule 106, but added requirements beyond the proposed order; Citibank and Adkins did not obtain the actual order.
Process server served Estes under the proposed order, believing it to be signed, due to the clerk’s indicated source, and without Citibank or Adkins obtaining the court’s order.
Adkins’s office did not sign the motions for default, and Citibank’s process server later filed corrected affidavits; multiple default motions were denied.
The trial court dismissed the case and imposed a $500 sanction against Adkins to be paid to a mediation fund, without examining Adkins’s culpability or Citibank’s conduct.
Citibank learned of the sanctioned order only after the dismissal; it objected and sought rehearing, leading to this appeal remanding for proceedings consistent with Chapter 10, Rule 13, and inherent power.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the sanction against Adkins was permissible	Adkins’s sanction was appropriate as signature responsibility for groundless pleadings.	Adkins did not sign the motions; sanctioning him was improper.	Sanction against Adkins reversed; improper since Adkins did not sign the pleadings.
Whether the dismissal as a death penalty sanction was excessive	Death penalty sanction justified due to frivolous motions.	Less severe sanctions could deter without dismissing merits.	Death penalty dismissal was excessive; not justified without lesser sanctions.
Whether due process requirements were satisfied before sanctions were imposed	Citibank deserved notice and opportunity to respond prior to sanctions.	Sanctions could be imposed under existing rules without extra notice.	Due process concerns—notice and hearing requirements were not clearly satisfied.

Hamill v. Level, 917 S.W.2d 15 (Tex. 1996) (death penalty sanctions require justification and opportunity to respond)
Powell v. Allied, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (prescribes limits on death penalty sanctions; need lesser sanctions )
Low v. Henry, 221 S.W.3d 609 (Tex. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard and need for lesser sanctions)
Sprague v. Sprague, 363 S.W.3d 788 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (identifying potential bases for sanctions under Chapter 10, Rule 13, inherent power)
Ezeoke v. Tracy, 349 S.W.3d 679 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (sanctions must deter bad faith abuse; remand for proper proceedings)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (requires consideration of lesser sanctions before death penalty sanctions)
McWhorter v. Sheller, 993 S.W.2d 781 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) (abuse of discretion standard for sanctions appeals)
Transamerican Natural Gas Corp. v. Powell, 811 S.W.2d 913 (Tex. 1991) (sanctions must be limited to deter repetition and not excessive)
Powell v. Level, 918 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1996) (related to death penalty sanction framework and due process)
Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994) (sanctions for frivolous actions; signatory limitations)