Patrick O'Connor & Associates, LP v. Chester R. Hall, 01-15-00661-CV

Background

O’Connor & Associates, L.P. sued Chester R. Hall in justice court (Dec. 2010) for unpaid fees and attorney’s fees; the petition named the plaintiff as “Patrick O’Connor & Associates, L.P.”
Hall was served with a citation that listed the plaintiff as “Patrick OConnor Associates” (omitting the apostrophe and the "L.P.").
Justice court entered a default judgment against Hall in June 2012; Hall later filed a bill of review challenging that default judgment.
Hall argued on appeal that he was not properly served (defective citation/misidentification) and therefore was entitled to relief as a matter of law; he also asserted fraud and a separate argument about an injunction barring O’Connor’s collection suits.
The county court at law granted summary judgment for Hall on his bill of review after O’Connor’s response was filed late and not considered.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the citation’s typographical variance in the plaintiff’s name rendered service invalid	O’Connor: minor typographical errors do not defeat service; the defendant could identify the plaintiff	Hall: the citation misidentified the named plaintiff (omitted "L.P."), violating Rule 99 and rendering service void	The court held the variance (omission of "L.P.") misidentified the plaintiff and rendered the citation void as a matter of law
Whether defective service alone suffices to obtain a bill of review	O’Connor: (implicit) defective service claim insufficient or not established here	Hall: defective service defeats the default judgment and obviates need to prove other bill-of-review elements	Court held that lack of proper service eliminates need to prove meritorious defense/fraud elements for bill of review under precedent
Whether the variance was a mere misnomer or fatal misidentification	O’Connor: name variance was minor and consistent enough to identify plaintiff	Hall: variance removed the limited partnership identifier and thus was misidentification	Court treated variance as misidentification (not harmless misnomer) and required strict compliance with Rule 99
Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment	O’Connor: summary judgment improper because fact issue existed about service validity	Hall: no genuine issue because citation was invalid as a matter of law	Court affirmed summary judgment for Hall; citation invalid, other bill-of-review elements unchallenged

Key Cases Cited

Boerjan v. Rodriguez, 436 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2014) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
Timpte Indus., Inc. v. Gish, 286 S.W.3d 306 (Tex. 2009) (resolving doubts and reasonable inferences for non-movant on summary judgment)
Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. 2004) (due process: lack of proper service removes need to prove other bill-of-review elements)
Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979) (elements required for bill of review)
Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (default judgment void unless strict compliance with issuance/service/return of citation)
Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884 (Tex. 1985) (no presumptions of valid service; failure to show strict compliance renders service invalid)
Orange Grove Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rivera, 679 S.W.2d 482 (Tex. 1984) (distinguishing misnomer from misidentification where misspelling consistent)
Enserch Corp. v. Parker, 794 S.W.2d 2 (Tex. 1990) (misnomer doctrine where parties are nevertheless identifiable)
Medeles v. Nunez, 923 S.W.2d 659 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996) (citation invalid where name misidentification defeated strict compliance)
Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833 (Tex. 1990) (in no-answer default context, insufficient issuance under Rule 99 is dispositive)