624 S.W.3d 796
Tex.2021Background:
- WWLC Investment, L.P. leased commercial space to Sorab Miraki (lease executed by Wendy Chen, identified as WWLC’s owner/president/CEO).
- Miraki stopped paying rent, was evicted, and sued WWLC in Nov. 2015 for breach, fraud, and DTPA violations.
- Process server attempted personal service on Chen five times in January 2016; substituted service by posting to her door occurred on April 6, 2016. Miraki never served WWLC’s registered agent, HPZ International, Inc.
- HPZ had filed WWLC’s name-change/assumed-name documents and functioned as WWLC’s registered agent and general partner; HPZ forfeited its charter on Jan. 29, 2016.
- Miraki obtained a default judgment against WWLC in Nov. 2016. WWLC filed for a bill of review in June 2017; the trial court and the court of appeals denied relief.
- The Texas Supreme Court reversed: it held WWLC showed improper service and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (WWLC) | Defendant's Argument (Miraki) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Chen satisfied service on a limited partnership | Serving Chen (WWLC’s president/owner/CEO) was not service on the partnership because she was not shown to be general partner or registered agent | Service on Chen sufficed because she was the only person involved and acted as WWLC’s officer | Service on Chen was not proper; service on a limited partnership must be on its general partner or registered agent |
| Whether Chen was WWLC’s general partner | Chen was not a general partner; she testified HPZ was | Chen’s role and filings showed she was effectively the sole person, so service was sufficient | Record lacked governing documents and Chen denied being general partner; evidence showed HPZ was general partner |
| Effect of HPZ’s forfeited charter on service | Forfeiture did not validate substituted service because substituted service occurred within the 90‑day period after forfeiture and HPZ remained general partner then | Forfeiture meant HPZ could not be served, so service on Chen was acceptable | Forfeiture occurred Jan. 29, 2016, but substituted service occurred April 6, 2016 (within 90 days); HPZ remained general partner for that period, so Miraki could have served HPZ |
| Bill of review burden when non-service alleged | Non-service excuses proving meritorious defense and causation; plaintiff must only show lack of proper service | Default judgment should stand absent proof that service complied with rules | Proven non-service conclusively establishes entitlement to bill-of-review relief; WWLC met its burden |
Key Cases Cited
- Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. 2004) (elements of bill of review and non‑service exception)
- Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (strict compliance required for service to sustain default judgment)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (a bill of review is a direct attack on a judgment)