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

Background

Erma J. Matthews sued individuals involved in filming a commercial, alleging trespass and use of nearby family-owned property; suit filed November 6, 2014.
Matthews served process by certified mail to Jerome Solomon (as registered agent for “Epoch Films, Inc.”) on November 25, 2014; defendants disputed proper service and identity of the defendant entities.
If service by mail to Solomon was effective, defendants’ answer was due Monday, December 22, 2014; defendants did not file an answer until June 2, 2015.
Matthews contends she repeatedly sought a default (no-answer) judgment during the six-month gap and that the trial court erred by not entering one or by not hearing her motions.
After filing their June 2 answer, defendants moved for traditional summary judgment; the trial court granted the motion and rendered a final take-nothing judgment.
On appeal, Matthews argued the court abused its discretion by failing to enter a default judgment before the late answer; the court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion and that the belated answer mooted default-related complaints.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to enter a no-answer default judgment after defendants missed the answer deadline	Matthews argued she repeatedly sought default judgment and the court should have entered default once the answer was late	Defendants contended they were not properly served, and even if service were effective their eventual answer cured any default issue	Court held no abuse of discretion: record shows Matthews did not properly pursue a default hearing and the June 2 answer rendered default complaints moot
Whether the court’s delay in ruling on any default motion was reversible error	Matthews asserted the court’s inaction during the interim prejudiced her rights	Defendants argued once an answer is filed, any earlier delay is moot	Court held any timing complaint became moot when the answer was filed; plaintiff waived hearing by asking a status conference not be held
Whether a late answer prevents the court from later ruling on a summary-judgment motion	Matthews implied the untimely answer should limit defendants’ post-answer dispositive relief	Defendants argued answers may be filed before default and summary judgment can be filed at any time	Court held an answer—even late—precludes a no-answer default judgment and defendants may move for traditional summary judgment at any time
Whether pro se status changes procedural standards applied	Matthews relied on her pro se status for leniency	Defendants relied on ordinary procedural rules	Court held pro se litigant is held to same substantive and procedural standards as represented parties

Key Cases Cited

Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants are held to same standards as represented parties)
Palacios v. Rayburn, 516 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1974, no writ) (once an answer is filed, prior failure to rule on default motion is moot)
Davis v. Jefferies, 764 S.W.2d 559 (Tex. 1989) (per curiam) (a default judgment may not be rendered after a defendant has filed an answer)
Santex Roofing & Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Venture Steel, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 55 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987, no writ) (same principle that answer precludes default judgment)
Davis v. West, 433 S.W.3d 101 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014) (timing complaints about delay in ruling are mooted by filing of answer)
In re S.K.A., 236 S.W.3d 875 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2007) (discussing answer deadlines and related rules)
Aguilar v. Livingston, 154 S.W.3d 832 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005) (appellate review of denial of default judgment in appeal from final judgment)