Telezone, Inc. and Waqar Ahmed v. Kingwood Wireless, 14-15-00742-CV

Kingwood Wireless sued Telezone, Inc. and Waqar Ahmed in 2012; defendants answered initially and later retained new counsel David M. Seeberger.
Seeberger filed a Notice of Appearance on June 9, 2013, listing his address as 3030 LBJ Fwy, #700, Dallas, TX 75234.
The trial court clerk instead mailed court notices to a different address (5001 Spring Vl Rd, Dallas, TX 75244); at least one earlier notice to that address was returned "Unable to Forward/Not Deliverable" on Dec. 16, 2013.
Kingwood appeared for trial on Feb. 12, 2015; Telezone/Ahmed did not appear. The trial court entered a default judgment on March 17, 2015, awarding damages and fees; the clerk mailed the default-judgment notice to the incorrect Spring Valley address and it was returned undeliverable.
New counsel for appellants discovered the default judgment and filed a restricted appeal on Aug. 31, 2015 (within six months of the judgment).
The court of appeals held that mailing required notices to an incorrect address—despite the correct address being on file and earlier returned mail—violated Rule 306a and appellants' due process, so the default judgment was reversed and the case remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restricted-appeal requirements were met (timeliness, party, nonparticipation, no post-judgment motions)	N/A (appellants sought relief)	N/A	Appellants satisfied all restricted-appeal requirements; notice filed within six months, were parties, did not participate, no post-judgment motions.
Whether sending required post-judgment (and trial-setting) notices to an incorrect address denied due process and constitutes error on the face of the record	The incorrect mailing deprived appellants of constitutionally required notice, so the default judgment is voidable	Implicitly that mailing satisfied clerk duties / judgment should stand (no appellee brief filed)	Court held mailing to wrong address (when correct address was on file and returned mail existed) violated Tex. R. Civ. P. 306a and due process; error was apparent on the face of the record, so judgment reversed and remanded.

Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (sets restricted-appeal requirements)
Alexander v. Lynda's Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (restricted-appeal standards)
In re K.M., 401 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013) (face-of-record rule includes clerk's file and reporter's record)
In re Gravitt, 371 S.W.3d 465 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012) (failure to give Rule 306a notice denies due process)
Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (default judgment without proper notice is constitutionally infirm)
Sweed v. Nye, 354 S.W.3d 823 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (notice sent to incorrect address is error on face of record)
Burress v. Richardson, 97 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003) (clerk must reexamine file after returned mail; improper mailing supports reversal)
Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. City of Houston, 857 S.W.2d 731 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993) (incorrect/incomplete address in mailed notices can show lack of notice and error on face of record)