Erma J. Matthews v. Jerome Solomon C/O Epoch Films, Inc. Mindy Goldberg, and Others, 03-15-00474-CV

Plaintiff Erma J. Matthews (pro se) sued Epoch Films, Jerome Solomon, Mindy Goldberg and others on November 6, 2014 for trespass, implied contract, and unjust enrichment in Bastrop County.
Defendants were served November 25, 2014; their answer was not filed until June 2, 2015 (well past the December 20, 2014 deadline).
Matthews repeatedly requested entry of default and a non-jury prove-up hearing for unliquidated damages beginning January 20, 2015; the trial court denied and later clarified scheduling, then set/cancelled a status conference.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in June 2015; Matthews filed competing summary‑judgment papers in July 2015. The trial court struck Matthews’s summary‑judgment response/evidence as untimely and entered final summary judgment for defendants on July 23, 2015.
Matthews appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by (1) failing to enter default and hold a prove‑up on damages and (2) allowing defendants’ untimely answer and granting summary judgment months after the original petition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by not entering default and by refusing to set plaintiff's motion for default prove‑up on unliquidated damages	Matthews: defendants failed to answer within the required time; allegations deemed admitted; court should have entered default and held a prove‑up under Tex. R. Civ. P. 243	Defendants: (implicit) timely adjudication on merits and opposition to default; summary judgment appropriate	Trial court did not enter default; instead it entertained defendants’ later answer and granted summary judgment for defendants (trial court’s rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Whether the court abused its discretion by allowing defendants’ untimely answer and granting summary judgment	Matthews: permitting a six‑month late answer and striking her evidence was improper; summary judgment should not have been granted when allegations were deemed admitted	Defendants: sought and obtained summary judgment; court struck plaintiff’s response as untimely and inadmissible	Trial court struck plaintiff’s summary‑response/evidence and entered final summary judgment for defendants on July 23, 2015

Aguilar v. Livingston, 154 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (denial of default judgment reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238 (Tex. 1985) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (default on unliquidated claims admits facts but requires proof of damages)
Moroch v. Collins, 174 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005) (application of appellate review for trial court discretion)