Erma J. Matthews v. Jerome Solomon C/O Epoch Films, Inc. Mindy Goldberg, and Others
03-15-00474-CV
| Tex. App. | Dec 22, 2015Background
- Plaintiff Erma J. Matthews sued defendants Jerome Solomon and Mindy Goldberg for trespass, unjust enrichment, and an "implied contract" arising from a commercial filmed at a Bastrop County property; she sought $40,000.
- Matthews filed suit on November 6, 2014; service and citation in the record contained defects (no visible court seal, incomplete return).
- Defendants filed special exceptions, an original answer, and affirmative defenses on June 2, 2015.
- Matthews did not obtain a default judgment before defendants answered and only sought default relief (informally) after the answer was on file; she never obtained a ruling on any default request.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on June 22, 2015; the trial court struck Matthews’ late summary-judgment response and evidence and entered final summary judgment for defendants on July 23, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by failing to enter a default judgment for Matthews | Matthews contends delay and the court’s failure to enter default deprived her of relief | Defendants argue Matthews failed to timely request default, never obtained a ruling, and thus failed to preserve error | Court affirmed: error not preserved because no timely request or ruling; answer was filed before any default could be entered |
| Whether a default judgment was possible after defendants filed an answer (even if late) | Matthews implies a late default should have been available due to court delay | Defendants: Texas law bars no-answer default after an answer is filed, so filing an answer extinguishes power to render default | Held: a court may not render a no-answer default after defendant files an answer; answer mooted any default request |
| Whether defects in citation/return would permit default relief | Matthews did not rely on service defects to justify denial of relief; she emphasized procedural delay | Defendants: service/return were defective (no seal, missing required return details), so strict compliance required for any default | Held: even had default been sought timely, defective citation/return would preclude valid default judgment (strict compliance required) |
| Whether summary judgment was properly granted and whether grounds not challenged are waived on appeal | Matthews focused on default; did not mount specific challenges to the trial-court summary-judgment grounds | Defendants: they presented documentary and affidavit evidence negating trespass, implied contract and unjust enrichment; Matthews failed to dispute those grounds | Held: where trial court grants a general summary judgment, appellant must negate each possible ground on appeal; Matthews waived challenges and judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Jefferies, 764 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1989) (no-answer default judgment may not be rendered after defendant files an answer)
- Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (strict compliance with service rules required to sustain a default judgment)
- Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Ademaj, 243 S.W.3d 618 (Tex. 2007) (summary-judgment standard/de novo review)
- Nabors Corp. Servs., Inc. v. Northfield Ins. Co., 132 S.W.3d 90 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, no pet.) (when summary judgment rests on multiple independent grounds, appellant must attack each ground)
- Galveston Wharf Co. v. Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co., 10 S.W. 537 (Tex. 1889) (trespass and limits on implied contract remedies against trespass to land)