Katy Venture, Ltd. and Katy Management, L.L.C. v. Cremona Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160

Background

Cremona sued Katy Venture, Ltd. and Katy Management, L.L.C. after a fire; process was attempted at the entities’ registered agent/address on file with the Texas Secretary of State but service attempts at that outdated address failed.
Cremona served through the Secretary of State and obtained a default judgment (over $820,000) after Katy entities did not answer.
Rule 239a requires the party obtaining a default judgment to certify the defendant’s “last known mailing address” so the clerk can mail notice; Cremona certified the outdated registered address as that last known mailing address.
Katy entities did not receive notice of the default judgment and later filed an equitable bill of review alleging lack of proper service and that Cremona knowingly certified the wrong “last known mailing address.”
The trial court granted Cremona’s traditional summary judgment; the court of appeals affirmed. The Texas Supreme Court reviewed de novo and found a genuine fact issue whether Cremona knowingly provided an incorrect last known mailing address, reversing and remanding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Katy entities raised genuine fact issue that they lacked fault for not receiving Rule 239a notice	Cremona knew the entities’ current address but certified an outdated address, so their failure to receive notice was not their fault	Katy entities were negligent by failing to update their registered address with Secretary of State, which contributed to lack of notice	Reversed: factual dispute exists whether Cremona knowingly certified wrong address; Katy entities met burden to raise issue of no negligence for bill of review purposes
Whether certifying an outdated registered address undermines finality of a default judgment under Rule 239a	If plaintiff misled court about last known mailing address, judgment is subject to bill of review	Failure to update registered address justifies relying on Secretary of State address and upholds judgment	Court: Misleading certification of last known address can constitute extrinsic fraud and supports bill of review; Rule 239a compliance differs from registered-agent service rules
Standard for surviving traditional summary judgment on bill of review claim	Need only show lack of personal negligence when asserting no notice due to denial of due process	Movant (Cremona) must show no genuine issue of material fact	Court: Applied summary judgment standards; nonmovant benefits from evidence viewed favorably and reasonable inferences against movant
Effect of entity’s failure to update registered address on notice-of-default-judgment claim	Negligence in not updating does not automatically bar relief when opposing party knowingly used a different known address	Negligence in failing to update is controlling and precludes relief	Court: Failure to update can be negligence but does not necessarily cause failure of notice when evidence shows plaintiff knew correct address and still certified wrong address

Key Cases Cited

Henkel v. Norman, 441 S.W.3d 249 (Tex. 2014) (summary-judgment review standard)
W. Invs., Inc. v. Urena, 162 S.W.3d 547 (Tex. 2005) (movant’s summary-judgment burden)
Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Perez, 819 S.W.2d 470 (Tex. 1991) (summary-judgment standard principles)
Amedisys, Inc. v. Kingwood Home Health Care, LLC, 437 S.W.3d 507 (Tex. 2014) (burden shifting in summary judgment)
PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (certifying incorrect last known address can be extrinsic fraud permitting bill of review)
Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., 369 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2012) (bill of review elements and due-process exception for lack of notice)
Petro-Chem. Trans., Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1974) (pre-Mabon notice-of-judgment principles)
Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. 2004) (bill of review framework)
Campus Invs. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. 2004) (entity’s failure to update registered address can constitute negligence)