Geochemical Operating Corp. v. Earl Harrison
11-13-00329-CV
| Tex. App. | Sep 24, 2015Background
- This is a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment against Geochemical Operating Corp. in favor of Harrison.
- The clerk issued citation by service on Geochemical's registered agent, Mr. Richard A. Quinn; the officer’s return stated service on "Mr. Quinn" at a Heath, Texas address.
- Geochemical did not appear or answer; a default judgment was entered on May 3, 2013, awarding leases and attorneys’ fees.
- Geochemical filed a restricted appeal; Harrison moved to amend the officer’s return to reflect the full name, Richard A. Quinn.
- The trial court granted the amendment to reflect the full name; Geochemical challenged the amendment arguing lack of jurisdiction under Rule 118 since appeal was pending.
- The court ultimately held the amendment void and reversed the judgment, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the trial court amend the return of service under Rule 118 after a restricted appeal is perfected? | Geochemical—trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend during restricted appeal. | Harrison—amendment permitted under Rule 118 relates back to original filing. | Amendment void; trial court lacked jurisdiction post-appeal. |
| Is there error on the face of the record due to defective service from the officer’s return listing only 'Mr. Quinn'? | Geochemical—service must name full registered agent; surname alone is insufficient. | Harrison—amendment cures facial defect and service is valid. | Error on the face of the record established; service defect reversible; judgment reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zaragoza v. De La Paz Morales, 616 S.W.2d 295 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1981) ( Rule 118 amendment requires court jurisdiction and no prejudice)
- Walker v. Brodhead, 828 S.W.2d 278 (Tex. App.—Austin 1992) (amendment relates back if timely and proper under Rule 118)
- Exposition Apartments Co. v. Barba, 630 S.W.2d 462 (Tex. App.—Austin 1982) (surname alone insufficient for service; facial defect possible)
- Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484 (Tex. 1995) (no presumptions in restricted appeals about service)
- Lejeune v. Insurance Co. of Pa., 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (strict compliance with service rules required; no automatic validity)
- Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (no presumptions in restricted appeals about service)