Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership D/B/A Sedona Pacific Properties and Gonzalez Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Alfonso Ventura and Maria Ventura
408 S.W.3d 507
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Ventura suit against Sedona Pacific Housing Partnership and Gonzalez Financial Holdings for wrongful foreclosure on homestead and accounting of surplus proceeds.
- Tax lien promissory note was $9,704.52; payoff offer of $8,041.25 was rejected after foreclosure date.
- Foreclosure sale occurred July 7, 2009 to Sedona for $75,000;Venturas valued property at $206,300 and claimed improper accounting.
- Trial court issued TRO; parties entered Rule 11 agreement suspending eviction and extending time to settle.
- Venturas amended pleadings to include fraud, usury, and failure to account; trial occurred March 21, 2011; Appellants did not appear; judgment in Venturas’ favor for $66,958 plus post-judgment interest and $6,500 attorney’s fees.
- Motion for new trial denied; this appeal followed, with focus on judgment type, Craddock standards, and evidentiary support for damages/fees.
- Record lacks a court reporter’s record of the default hearing, complicating review of damages evidence; Court applies presumptions regarding missing portions of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of judgment entered? | Venturas: default judgment | Appellants: not a default; trial on merits | Post-appearance default judgment |
| Craddock standards met? | Venturas: Craddock elements satisfied | Appellants: not intentionally or consciously indifferent; meritorious defense | No abuse of discretion; Craddock not met due to conscious indifference |
| Damages proof on appeal? | Venturas: damages and fees proven | Appellants: lack of complete record prevents review | Issue not reviewable; record missing; presumption supports judgment if appropriate; Issue Two overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177 (Tex. 2012) (defines types of default judgments beyond pre/post-answer)
- Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1979) (categories of default judgments in contrast to judgment upon trial)
- Exito Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2004) (Rule 11 agreements and general appearance analysis)
- Angelou v. African Overseas Union, 33 S.W.3d 269 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000) (Rule 11 agreement extending answer not a general appearance in that context)
- LBL Oil Co. v. International Power Services, Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (post-appearance default judgment)
- In re Brilliant, 86 S.W.3d 680 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2002) (due process; notice when general appearance)
- Vernon v. Perrien, 390 S.W.3d 47 (Tex.App.—El Paso 2012) (presumption of regularity of judgments)
- Wilson v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 533 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2004) (no notice in no-answer default)
- Milestone Operating, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corporation, 388 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2012) (Craddock elements and abuse of discretion)