in the Interest of C.L.W., S.S.W., and L.M.W., Children, 485 S.W.3d 537

Steven and Andra W. divorced in 2011; Andra filed a 2012 petition to modify the parent-child relationship seeking to deny Steven possession/access to their three children and requesting attorney’s fees and costs.
Process server Monica Gamez attempted personal service at a Woodlawn Avenue address three times (June 30, July 2, July 5, 2012); noted Steven’s green pickup in driveway twice and a woman (Stephanie) who said Steven was not home and would be given a message.
The trial court granted Andra’s motion for alternative (substituted) service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106, service was effectuated by posting at the Woodlawn residence, and Steven did not answer or appear at the hearing.
The court entered a default judgment granting Andra’s petition, awarded $3,500 in attorney’s fees and $207 in costs; Steven filed a restricted appeal claiming (1) the affidavit supporting alternative service was insufficient and (2) attorney’s fees and costs lacked evidentiary support.
On appeal the panel reviewed strict-compliance requirements for substituted service and whether the affidavit provided evidence of probative value that the Woodlawn address was Steven’s usual abode or place where he could be found.
The court affirmed the substituted-service order and costs award but reversed and remanded the attorney’s-fee award for lack of evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Andra)	Defendant's Argument (Steven)	Held
Whether the affidavit supporting alternative/substituted service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106(b) was sufficient	Gamez’s affidavit showing three attempts, presence of respondent’s pickup, and Stephanie’s statements provided probative facts that service at Woodlawn would notify Steven	Affidavit was insufficient because Woodlawn was not the address in the divorce decree, did not expressly state it was his usual abode/business, and lacked detail proving ownership of the truck	Affidavit was sufficient; substituted service authorized because the affidavit supplied evidence of probative value that the address was a place Steven could probably be found
Whether the trial court erred by awarding $3,500 in attorney’s fees without hearing evidence	Andra requested $3,500 and the court could infer reasonableness from filings and hearings	No evidence was offered at the default hearing to prove reasonable attorney’s fees	Reversed and remanded on attorney’s fees: unliquidated damages require evidentiary hearing under Tex. R. Civ. P. 243/Holt Atherton
Whether the trial court’s award of $207 in costs was supported	Costs recoverable to prevailing party; clerk’s bill controls	None disputing the clerk’s bill amount in record	Affirmed: clerk’s bill shows court costs exceeding $500 and supports the $207 award

Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (restricted-appeal requirements and error apparent on the face of the record)
Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (procedural requirements for restricted appeals)
Primate Constr. Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (defective service of process in restricted appeal constitutes error on face of record)
McKanna v. Edgar, 388 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1965) (service must strictly comply with statutory provisions to support default judgment)
Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992) (unliquidated damages require evidence; remand for new hearing when no evidence presented)
Garrels v. Wales Transp., Inc., 706 S.W.2d 757 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1986) (affidavit under Rule 106 must provide evidence of probative value regarding location)
Siddiqui v. West Bellfort Prop. Owners Ass’n, 819 S.W.2d 657 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1991) (attorney’s fees are unliquidated absent an agreement)
Bertrand v. Bertrand, 449 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2014) (clerk’s bill of costs governs award of court costs)