Linda Hayes Schoendienst v. Robert L. Haug, Vince Wood and Highland Ventures, I, Ltd.
399 S.W.3d 313
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Hayes Schoendienst challenged a no-answer default judgment obtained by Haug, Wood, and Highland Ventures, I, Ltd. in a suit arising from an alleged fraudulent investment scheme; she argued due process violations for lack of notice after she appeared; the court granted a TRO and an agreed temporary injunction prior to the default judgment; the agreed injunction was signed by Hayes without contesting jurisdiction; the interlocutory default judgment awarded substantial damages and was made final by severing claims against co-defendants; the appellate court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
- Hayes did not file a written answer but signed an agreed temporary injunction that restrained her conduct, which the court treated as an appearance for purposes of due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hayes appeared, triggering due-process notice requirements | Hayes appeared by signing the agreed injunction. | Appellees argue a TRO agreement is not appearance; she did appear only to the extent of the injunctive order. | Sustained; Hayes appeared by agreeing to the temporary injunction, requiring notice before default judgment. |
| Whether the pleadings supported liability | The pleadings and record support liability against Hayes. | The pleadings were insufficient to impose liability. | Not reached; issue 1 resolved conditioned reversal and remand. |
| Whether there was evidence to support unliquidated damages | Damages were warranted as pleaded. | Damages unsupported by evidence. | Not reached; issue 1 resolved conditioned reversal and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- LBL Oil Co. v. International Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (due process requires notice after appearance before default judgment)
- Runberg, 159 S.W.3d 194 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2005) (appearance for default-judgment notice when party signs or participates in injunctive relief)
- In re C.R.B., 256 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008) (consent to judgment can constitute appearance)
- Redwood Group, L.L.C. v. Louiseau, 113 S.W.3d 866 (Tex. App.—Austin 2003) (rule 11 agreement to TRO extension did not constitute appearance)
- Crystalix Group International, Inc. v. Vitro Laser Group USA, Inc., 127 S.W.3d 425 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004) (rule 11 agreements extending TRO did not invoke court’s jurisdiction)
- Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2004) (temporary injunction can show appearance; analysis on appearance factors)