J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cintas- R. U.S., L.P., 01-14-00933-CV

Background

Cintas-R.U.S., L.P. obtained a default judgment in County Court at Law No. 3, Harris County, Texas against J & J Container Manufacturing, Inc. on June 3, 2014.
Process and post-judgment mailings to the corporation’s registered-agent address (6124 W. Little York / PO Box 38182 / 1526 De Soto) were repeatedly returned “Not Deliverable As Addressed.”
Cintas served the Texas Secretary of State under Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 5.251 after learning the registered agent could not be located at the registered office.
Post-judgment discovery was mailed July 11, 2014; J & J did not respond, object, supersede, or seek relief.
In late August 2014, a Harris County constable collected a voluntary payment from J & J of $17,488.05; Cintas received the funds on September 9, 2014 and mailed a Full and Final Release of Judgment and Judgment Lien on September 24, 2014.
J & J later filed a restricted appeal (Notice of Intent November 18, 2014); Cintas moves to dismiss as moot or, alternatively, to affirm the judgment and contends service via the Secretary of State was proper.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Cintas)	Defendant's Argument (J & J)	Held / Appellee's Position
Whether the appeal is moot because the judgment was paid and a full release issued	Payment was voluntary, without reservation; release was issued; payment moots the appeal and waives appellate rights	(Implicit) Payment does not preclude appellate review (or seeks to pursue restricted appeal despite payment)	Appellee: appeal is moot; voluntary satisfaction waives right to appeal and the matter should be dismissed or affirmed
Whether service was proper where registered agent/address were invalid	J & J failed to maintain a registered agent/office; Secretary of State properly served under Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code § 5.251(1)(B) after diligence	(Implicit) Service may have been defective because notices were returned undeliverable	Appellee: service via Secretary of State was proper given returned mail and demonstrated inability to locate agent; trial court records and certificate establish valid service
Whether post-judgment discovery/enforcement procedures were adequate before collection	Plaintiff complied with post-judgment discovery rules and attempted collection; notice and discovery were mailed; constable made demand	(Implicit) Debtor may claim lack of notice or insufficient enforcement procedures	Appellee: provided discovery and notice; debtor had opportunity to respond but instead paid without contest
Whether public-policy or equitable considerations permit relief after voluntary payment	Policy disfavors permitting a party to pay and later reverse course; payment is treated as admission that claim was justly due	(Implicit) Equity may allow recovery if payment was coerced or there was mistake	Appellee: policy bars reopening; debtor should have resisted if it disputed the debt

Key Cases Cited

Employees Finance Co. v. Lathram, 369 S.W.2d 927 (Tex. 1963) (voluntary satisfaction of judgment renders the cause moot and waives right to appeal)
Guajardo v. Alamo Lumber Co., 317 S.W.2d 725 (Tex. 1958) (payment waives appeal and precludes later challenge)
BMG Direct Mktg. v. Peake, 178 S.W.3d 763 (Tex. 2005) (public-policy reasoning that a payor who believes a claim is not due should resist rather than pay and later sue to recover)
R.G. McClung Cotton Co. v. Cotton Concentration Co., 479 S.W.2d 733 (Tex. Civ. App. — Dallas 1972) (discussing policy against permitting post-payment reversal)
Otto v. Rau Petroleum Products, 582 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Civ. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1979) (applying rule that voluntary satisfaction waives appellate rights)
Marshall v. Housing Auth. of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782 (Tex. 2006) (noting voluntary satisfaction ordinarily renders the case moot and waives appeal)
Highland Church of Christ v. Powell, 640 S.W.2d 235 (Tex. 1982) (policy against allowing a party to pay then later seek recovery)
Campus Invs., Inc. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. 2004) (Secretary of State certificate can establish proper service under Rule 107)
Orgoo, Inc. v. Rackspace U.S., Inc., 341 S.W.3d 34 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2011) (Secretary of State certificate satisfies the purpose of Rule 107 to establish proper citation and service)