Fifteen-Thousand One-Hundred Ninety-Six Dollars and Forty-One Cents in United States Currency v. State, 03-16-00015-CV

The State filed a civil forfeiture action for $15,196.41 seized from Jaime Daryl Edwards, alleging the currency was contraband under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 59.01.
Edwards, represented by counsel, timely filed a general denial; counsel later withdrew with Edwards’s agreement.
The State moved to set a hearing on September 2, 2015; the trial court’s order setting the hearing was dated September 8 and mailed to Edwards at the county jail.
The hearing was set for October 7, 2015; Edwards did not appear, the State presented evidence, and the court entered a default judgment forfeiting the funds to the State.
Edwards filed a restricted appeal within six months, arguing the record shows he did not receive the 45 days’ notice required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 245 for a first trial setting; the record showed at most 29 days’ notice.
The trial court’s judgment was reversed and remanded because the error (insufficient notice) was apparent on the face of the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Edwards)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the default judgment should be set aside because Edwards lacked the 45 days’ notice required by Rule 245	Edwards argued the face of the record shows he received at most 29 days’ notice of the October 7 hearing, so the default judgment violated Rule 245 and due process	The State conceded the notice was less than 45 days but argued Edwards waived any complaint by failing to appear or object before trial or in post-judgment motions	Reversed and remanded: the record plainly showed insufficient notice (error apparent on the face of the record); waiver arguments did not cure the facial defect in a restricted appeal

Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (elements and scope of restricted appeals)
Ginn v. Forrester, 282 S.W.3d 430 (Tex. 2009) (error in restricted appeal must appear on the face of the record)
General Elec. Co. v. Falcon Ridge Apartments, 811 S.W.2d 942 (Tex. 1991) (face of the record defined for restricted appeals)
LBL Oil Co. v. International Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (party who has appeared is entitled to notice of trial; failure to give notice can violate due process)
Quaestor Invs., Inc. v. State of Chiapas, 997 S.W.2d 226 (Tex. 1999) (restricted-appeal standards)
Norman Commc’ns, Inc. v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1997) (restricted-appeal standards)
Blanco v. Bolanos, 20 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2000) (default judgment improper where party did not receive Rule 245’s 45 days’ notice)
Balogh v. Ramos, 978 S.W.2d 696 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998) (party may be responsible for lack of notice when caused by its own failures; waiver principles)
Custom-Crete, Inc. v. K-Bar Servs., Inc., 82 S.W.3d 655 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002) (a party who appears and is ready to proceed may waive a Rule 245 objection)