Leticia C. Garcia v. Preston R. Ennis, 554 S.W.3d 209

Background

Ennis sued Garcia after an automobile collision; a private process server filed a return stating Garcia was personally served on May 30, 2014, but the return was not endorsed on or attached to the citation.
The clerk did not retain a copy of the citation in the court file as required by Tex. R. Civ. P. 99(a). The trial court entered a default judgment in November 2015.
Garcia filed a bill of review in August 2016 arguing the default judgment was void because the court’s file lacked the citation, so the record did not show strict compliance with service rules.
Ennis later (Oct. 2016) filed a copy of the citation that had been served; he argued Rule 107 compliance and blamed the clerk for not filing the citation.
The trial court denied Garcia’s summary-judgment motion and made the order final; Garcia appealed. The court of appeals reversed, holding the record at the time of the default judgment did not show strict compliance and set aside the default judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Garcia)	Defendant's Argument (Ennis)	Held
Whether the trial court had personal jurisdiction because the court file lacked the citation when the default judgment was entered	Absence of the citation in the court file at the time of judgment means service did not strictly comply with rules, so judgment is void	Rule 107 compliance (return on file) was sufficient; the later-filed citation cures the defect and clerk’s error is not fatal	Held for Garcia: strict compliance requires citation in the file when judgment is entered; missing citation renders service invalid
Whether Rule 107’s 2011 amendment eliminated any requirement that a citation be on file before default judgment	The amendment does not eliminate the requirement that the citation be in the court’s file when judgment is entered—Rule 99(a) still requires clerk to retain citation	Argues amendment to Rule 107 removed need for citation to be on file at time of judgment; compliance with Rule 107 suffices	Held for Garcia: Rule 107 must be read in context with Rules 107(a) and 99(a); citation still must be in file when judgment is entered
Whether the trial court could consider the citation filed after the default judgment in assessing strict compliance	The court cannot consider post-judgment filings to cure defects in the record that existed when judgment was entered	Post-judgment citation shows proper service and should be considered; failure to file was clerical	Held for Garcia: post-judgment evidence cannot be used to fill gaps in the record that existed at the time of entry of default judgment
Whether actual notice or lack of denial of service by defendant cures defective service	Actual notice without proper service is insufficient to confer jurisdiction; strict procedural compliance required	Emphasizes Garcia never denied being served, suggesting harmlessness	Held for Garcia: actual notice does not cure defective service; strict compliance controlling

Key Cases Cited

Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett, 164 S.W.3d 656 (Tex. 2005) (standard of review for traditional summary judgment)
Mann Frankfort Stein & Lipp Advisors, Inc. v. Fielding, 289 S.W.3d 844 (Tex. 2009) (summary-judgment evidence rules and treatment of nonmovant evidence)
King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (bill of review principles)
Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1998) (bill of review when service is invalid)
CSR Ltd. v. Link, 925 S.W.2d 591 (Tex. 1996) (personal jurisdiction required for binding judgment)
Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (strict compliance required for service of process in default-judgment context)
Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884 (Tex. 1985) (failure to show strict compliance renders service invalid)
Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (actual notice does not cure defective service)
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (grounds for new trial/bill of review framework)