Sutherland v. Spencer
376 S.W.3d 752
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Spencer contracted Southern Customs Paint and Body to restore a 1965 Corvette for $7,500; upon pickup five months later the car was incomplete and parts were missing.
- Spencer gave written DTPA notice to Southern Customs before filing suit; Southern Customs responded.
- Spencer filed a DTPA suit alleging incomplete work, missing parts, and misrepresentations; service of process was issued with naming errors but defendants acknowledged receipt and retained the citations.
- Southern Customs failed to timely answer; Spencer obtained a default judgment including treble damages and attorneys’ fees for alleged DTPA violations.
- Southern Customs moved for a new trial arguing improper service and satisfaction of Craddock’s first element; trial court denied; court of appeals affirmed.
- The Texas Supreme Court reversed, holding the first Craddock element was satisfied by uncontroverted affidavits and weather/holiday related excuses, remanding for consideration of elements two and three.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Craddock element 1 satisfied? | De La Garza and Sutherland affidavits negate intentional conduct. | Excuses do not negate intentional negligence; competing interpretations of service. | Yes; first element satisfied |
| Do weather/holiday excuses suffice to negate conscious indifference? | Excuses mirror Craddock-like circumstances and show mistake/accident. | Forgetfulness is not a valid Craddock excuse under these facts. | Yes; excuses sufficient to satisfy first Craddock element |
| Should the court review be limited to Craddock's first element? | Arguments on service and Craddock elements warrant full remand. | If first element fails, judgment should be void; otherwise proceed. | Remanded for consideration of Craddock elements 2 and 3 |
Key Cases Cited
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Comm. App. 1939) (establishes Craddock three-part test for setting aside default judgments)
- Fidelity & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Construction Co., 186 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. 2006) (defines conscious indifference and analysis framework)
- In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006) (excuses and mistakes negate conscious indifference; per curiam)
- Bank One, Tex., N.A. v. Moody, 830 S.W.2d 81 (Tex. 1992) (illustrates mistakes of law may negate conscious indifference)
- Strackbein v. Prewitt, 671 S.W.2d 37 (Tex. 1984) (discusses knowledge and acts of defendants in Craddock analysis)
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Comm. App. 1939) (origin of Craddock test balancing fairness between defendant and plaintiff)