Dionisio G. Torres D/B/A Torres Design & Construction, Torres Design & Construction, Inc., and Torres Construction v. Leticia Haynes
2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 1742
Tex. App.2014Background
- Torres appealed a default judgment against him for construction work on a restaurant in Laredo, based on alleged breach of contract, warranty, DTPA, and negligence.
- Haynes sued in July 2011; April 5, 2012 default judgment occurred after damages hearing.
- The trial court held the default valid and denied a new-trial motion.
- Torres argued the default was void for improper service and lack of jurisdiction.
- The court on rehearing found substituted service improperly authorized and lack of strict service compliance, voiding the judgment and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the default void for improper service lacking jurisdiction? | Torres contends service was not strictly compliant. | Haynes argues service to notify Torres complied with the rules. | Yes; lack of strict service voids default judgment. |
| Was substituted service properly authorized under Rule 106? | No motion or order authorizing substituted service appears. | Record shows no proper authorization. | No; substituted service not properly authorized. |
| Did any attorney appearance after judgment validate the judgment? | Attorneys’ post-judgment appearance cannot cure void judgment. | N/A or not sufficient to validate. | No; post-judgment appearance cannot validate void judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lejeune (Insurance Co. of Pa. v. Lejeune), 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (strict compliance required; no presumptions in favor of service)
- Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (jurisdiction hinges on proper service rather than notice)
- Orgoo, Inc. v. Rackspace US, Inc., 341 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (no jurisdiction without strict service; substituted service lacking)
- Mapco, Inc. v. Carter, 817 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. 1991) (addressing void judgment when jurisdiction defective)
- Cates v. Pon, 663 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983) (record must show trial court had jurisdiction at judgment time)