Gary Mixon v. Greg Nelson, as Principal of Madex Capital, L.L.C. Nick DeFilippis, as Principal of Blue Star Capital Group, L.L.P. Michael Morini And Norman R. Zukis, 03-15-00287-CV

Appellees obtained a default judgment against Mixon in an underlying securities/fraud suit after substitute service was ordered at 116 Cave Circle, Boerne, Texas.
Process server Vasquez filed an affidavit claiming he posted the citation and petition on the front door on November 2, 2013; Mixon denies ever receiving those documents.
Mixon first learned of the underlying suit in September 2013 via a subpoena to his ex‑wife; he called the Travis County clerk in November and was told he had not been served.
Default judgment entered January 17, 2014 awarding economic and punitive damages; notice was sent to Mixon’s prior addresses and Mixon did not learn of the judgment until June 2014.
Mixon filed a bill of review claiming defective service; the trial court granted appellees’ no‑evidence summary judgment, dismissed the bill of review with prejudice, and awarded appellees attorneys’ fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mixon produced more than a scintilla of evidence that he was never served	Mixon: his affidavit/deposition, ex‑wife’s declaration, and lack of receipt of process (call‑back card, court clerk inquiry) create fact issues on service	Appellees: process‑server affidavit and citation recitals establish service; no evidence to the contrary	Trial court granted no‑evidence SJ for appellees; Mixon argues reversal is required because his testimony and corroborating circumstantial evidence are "some evidence" of defective service
Whether appellees were entitled to attorneys’ fees for defending the bill of review	Mixon: no statutory or contractual basis; where bill of review is based solely on lack of service the respondent did not have to prove the underlying claim so fees are not recoverable	Appellees: claimed entitlement to fees (trial court awarded $6,120) without pointing to a statute/contract in the motion	Trial court awarded fees; Mixon argues award was an abuse of discretion because prevailing‑party fees require statutory/contractual authorization and Meece logic precludes fees when respondent did not have to prove the underlying claim

Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1998) (lack of constitutionally required service dispenses with need to prove meritorious defense in a bill of review)
Meece v. Moerbe, 631 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1982) (discussion whether prevailing party in bill of review may recover attorneys’ fees; fees tie to proving the underlying claim)
Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (due process requires notice of suit and judgment)
Sung Man Min v. Avila, 991 S.W.2d 495 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999) (petitioner's affidavit can be some evidence of defective service)