AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed July 12, 2022

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00831-CV

RENATA BLACK A/K/A RENATA MUTIS, Appellant

V.

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL XXIII, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-15609

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

In this restricted appeal, Renata Black a/k/a Renata Mutis1challenges a default 

judgment as void for failure of personal jurisdiction, claiming error on the face of 

the record because service was invalid. We affirm. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

To prevail on a restricted appeal, an appellant must show: (1) she filed notice 

of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) she was 

a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) she did not participate in the hearing that 

1

In her brief, counsel refers to Ms. Black as “Renata” and we follow suit in this opinion.
–2–

resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any post-judgment 

motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is 

apparent on the face of the record. Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 

848 (Tex. 2004). The parties only dispute the last element, based on service.

For a default judgment to withstand direct attack by a restricted appeal, the 

face of the record must affirmatively show strict compliance with the rules governing 

service of process. See Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 

1994) (per curiam). “There are no presumptions in favor of valid issuance, service, 

and return of service.” Id. If the record in a restricted appeal fails to affirmatively 

show strict compliance with the rules of civil procedure governing service of 

citation, the attempted service of process is invalid and of no effect. See Uvalde 

Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex. 1985). 

Any failure to comply with the rules renders the attempted service of process invalid, 

and the trial court acquires no personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Lytle v. 

Cunningham, 261 S.W.3d 837, 839–40 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.). A 

judgment based on improper service is void. Id.

In its September 24, 2019 original petition, Appellee alleged Renata resided 

in New York, and, because the lawsuit “arises out of [her] business in Texas,” and 

she “does not maintain a regular place of business in this state or a designated agent 

for service of process,” the Texas Secretary of State “is an agent for service of 
–3–

process.” See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 17.044. The record contains a 

December 3, 2019 Whitney certificate from the Texas Secretary of State, confirming 

it served Renata by certified mail, return receipt requested, on October 15, 2019, and 

that office received the return receipt on October 18, 2019. See Whitney v. L & L 

Realty Corp., 500 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1973).

“Absent fraud or mistake, a Certificate from the Secretary of State’s office is 

conclusive evidence that the Secretary of State received service of process and 

forwarded it to the nonresident defendant.” Capitol Brick v. Fleming Mfg. Co., 722 

S.W.2d 399, 401 (Tex. 1986). “When substituted service on a statutory agent is 

allowed, the designee is not an agent for the serving but for receiving process on the 

defendant’s behalf.” Campus Investments v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. 

2004).2

Renata complains that the face of the record fails to show compliance with 

civil procedure rules 16, 105, and 107. Accepting this argument requires us to treat 

the service in this case as if Renata were a Texas resident served by the typical rules 

for service of citation and not as a non-resident doing business here pursuant to Civil 

Practice and Remedies Code § 17.044. The face of the record demonstrates, and the 

2 Renata has made no allegations of fraud or mistake, nor has she alleged that appellee provided a 

defective citation to the Secretary of State. See Campus Investments, 144 S.W.3d at 466. (defective citation 

through substituted service on the Secretary of State could mislead a defendant and lead to improper default 

judgment, the remedy for which would be a bill of review).
–4–

only indication the trial court had, was that Renata was to be served pursuant to 

§ 17.044. 

The Secretary’s certificate here conclusively proves valid service on Renata. 

See Campus Investments, 144 S.W.3d at 466 (“As the purpose of Rule 107 is to 

establish whether there has been proper citation and service, the Secretary’s 

certificate fulfills that purpose.”); MG Int’l Menswear, Inc. v. Robert Graham 

Designs LLC, No. 05-18-00517-CV, 2019 WL 642724, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Feb. 15, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). And because rules 16 and 105 apply to agents for 

serving process, not receiving process, Renata’s complaint regarding those rules 

fails. See Campus Investments, 144 S.W.3d at 466.

We affirm.

200831f.p05 /Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–5–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

RENATA BLACK A/K/A RENATA 

MUTIS, Appellant

No. 05-20-00831-CV V.

LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL 

XXIII, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-15609.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Reichek and Nowell 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED.

It is ORDERED that appellee LAKELAND WEST CAPITAL XXIII, LLC 

recover its costs of this appeal from appellant RENATA BLACK A/K/A RENATA 

MUTIS.

Judgment entered this 12th day of July, 2022.