Corey L. Roberts v. Celia Clanton Roberts
01-15-00024-CV
| Tex. App. | Feb 23, 2015Background
- This appeal arises from a divorce case in Orange County, Texas: Celia Clanton Roberts (plaintiff/appellee) obtained a default final decree of divorce against Corey L. Roberts (defendant/appellant) after she filed a Motion for Alternative Service and a return of service was filed.
- Appellee filed her Motion for Alternative Service on July 22, 2014; the return of service, filed August 19, 2014, states that a person named Linda Roberts was served on July 31, 2014. The return and attached affidavit contain multiple inconsistencies about who was served and what was left.
- The trial court signed the default judgment on August 26, 2014. Appellant moved to set aside the default judgment (contending defective service and failure to comply with the Texas Rules governing returns of service), but the trial court denied relief.
- Appellant timely appealed, arguing the default judgment is void because the return of service and affidavit failed to satisfy procedural requisites (e.g., filing/contents required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 107 and 239 and strict compliance principles).
- The central dispute is whether the defective/ambiguous return of service and related affidavit deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction (or otherwise rendered the default judgment void) and whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the default judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Clanton Roberts) | Defendant's Argument (Roberts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was service of process / the return of service sufficient to support a default judgment? | Return, affidavit, and alternative-service procedure were sufficient and judgment was properly entered. | Return and affidavit contain multiple defects and contradictions; they fail to show strict compliance with rules governing returns and alternative service. | Court held the return/affidavit defects prevented a finding of valid service; a default judgment entered under those circumstances is improper. |
| 2) Must the return of service be on file for the statutorily required period before default? | Argued procedural timing requirements were satisfied or cured. | The return was not on file the required ten days (Tex. R. Civ. P. 107), undermining the default. | Court treated the failure to have a proper return on file as an important defect supporting reversal/setting aside of the default. |
| 3) Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a motion to set aside default judgment when service is defective? | Denial proper because plaintiff had satisfied notice obligations. | Denial is an abuse because the record fails to show valid service or that defendant appeared/waived service. | Court found the trial court abused its discretion in denying relief given lack of strict compliance with service rules. |
| 4) Do defects in the return/affidavit create a jurisdictional defect rendering the default judgment void? | Plaintiff contended any defects were not jurisdictional or were cured. | Defendant argued defects deprived court of personal jurisdiction, so default is void. | Court treated the defects as sufficient to undermine jurisdictional assumptions and invalidated/remanded the default judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (strict compliance with service/return requirements is required when jurisdiction is challenged)
- Worford v. Stamper, 801 S.W.2d 108 (Tex. 1990) (scope of service defects and when return/affidavit must demonstrate proper service)
- Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc. v. Wallace, 944 S.W.2d 72 (Tex. App.—Waco 1997) (discusses procedural requisites and consequences of defective returns)
- Ins. Co. of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (addresses when judgments must be set aside for procedural defects)
- Patterson v. Brist, 236 S.W.3d 238 (Tex. App. 2007) (cases on default judgment standards and requirements)