Riyaaz Tayob v. Quarterspot, Inc.
05-15-00897-CV
| Tex. App. | Nov 28, 2016Background
- Quarterspot obtained a Virginia default judgment against Tayob for a contract debt (Sept. 2014) and sought domestication in Texas under the UEFJA.
- Quarterspot filed an authenticated copy of the Virginia judgment in Collin County on March 18, 2015, and submitted an attorney affidavit giving addresses for Quarterspot and Tayob; mailed notice to Tayob was returned as undeliverable.
- A writ of execution issued at Quarterspot’s request; Tayob filed an untimely motion for new trial and later filed a restricted appeal alleging lack of notice and voidness of the Virginia judgment.
- The Texas trial court denied Tayob’s motion for new trial after its plenary power expired; Tayob filed a restricted appeal within the applicable period (original notice timely; restricted-appeal elements later added by amendment).
- The Court of Appeals found the attorney’s affidavit filed under the UEFJA legally deficient because it did not state personal knowledge or a basis for the affidavit’s assertions, so the UEFJA filing requirement was not satisfied.
- The court declined to declare the Virginia judgment void on the limited record because it could not determine whether the address used satisfied Virginia’s "last known address" standard for constructive service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tayob) | Defendant's Argument (Quarterspot) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tayob met requirements for a restricted appeal | Timely original appeal and met restricted-appeal elements (didn't participate; error apparent on face) | Amended restricted notice was untimely and thus no jurisdiction | Court held restricted appeal timely under Sweed; Tayob met other restricted-appeal prerequisites |
| Whether the Virginia judgment is void for lack of personal jurisdiction/insufficient service | Judgment void because service in Virginia (and notice in Texas) used a non-existent/invalid address so he lacked notice and opportunity to be heard | Service/process complied with Virginia procedure and judgment should be enforced | Court declined to declare the judgment void on this record; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- McCoy v. Knobler, 260 S.W.3d 179 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008) (discussing full faith and credit and UEFJA enforcement)
- Moncrief v. Harvey, 805 S.W.2d 20 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991) (filing a properly domesticated foreign judgment creates a final Texas judgment)
- Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884 (Tex. 2014) (elements and standards for restricted appeals)
- Sweed v. Nye, 323 S.W.3d 873 (Tex. 2010) (a late-filed amended restricted notice does not necessarily deprive appellate jurisdiction when original notice was timely)
- Kerlin v. Arias, 274 S.W.3d 666 (Tex. 2008) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge to have probative value)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Leggat, 904 S.W.2d 643 (Tex. 1995) (affidavit requirements include personal-knowledge showing)
- Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ. v. Prosper Fin’l, Inc., 732 S.E.2d 246 (Va. 2012) (material noncompliance with Virginia constructive-service statute invalidates service and default judgments)