1 ... T h e d e fau lt ju d g m e n t a t issu e w a s re n d e re d b y the H o n o ra b le J o e F
. B ro w n , J r., p re sid ing ju d g e o f t h e 5 7 th

Ju di ci al D i s t r i ct Cour t , B ex ar Coun t y , T ex as on D ec embe r 18, 2006 a n d a ddr es s ed i s s u es r el at i n g t o c on s er v at or s h i p, p o sse ssio n , ch ild su p p o rt, c h ild su p p o rt a rr e a ra g e , un p a id m e d ic a l sup p o rt, li fe in su ra n c e , an d a tto rn e y’s f e e s. i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 62 5- CV IN THE I NT EREST OF K .B. , AChi ld Fr om the 73rd Judi cial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-CI -03876 Honora ble Andy Mireles, Judge Pre siding 1 Opinion by : Phylis J . Speedlin, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ryan Mar ion, J ustice Phylis J . Speedlin, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: J uly 29, 2009 AFF I RMED Cy rus Tre maine B rown bring s this appeal see king to se t aside a de fault judg ment rende red
a g a ins t hi m in

a su it a ff e c tin gthe pa

re nt- c hil d re latio ns hip re late d to hi s so n, K. B . B e c a us e we ho ld Br own has not shown himself entitled to such re lief under the federa l Serviceme mbers Civil Relief Act, we aff

irm the trial cour

t’s order
.04

- 08

- 00 62 5- CV

2 ... W e n ot e t h at B r own c h ar ac t er i ze d h i s r equ es t f or r el i ef a t t h e t r i al c ou r t l ev el an d on a ppea l a s a bi l l of re v ie w . A ll o f B ro w n ’s a rg u m e n ts a n d a n a lysis, h o w e v e r, fo c u s e x c lus ive ly o n the S e rv ic e m e m b e rs C ivil R e lief A c t. See S e rv ic e m e m b e rs C ivil R e lief A c t, 5 0 U .S .C .A . ap p . § 5 2 1 (W e st 2 0 0 8 ); s ee al s o T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8
. 1 (i )) (r eq ui ri ng a p p e llan t’s b rie f t o c o n ta in “a c le a r a n d c o n c is e a rg u m e n t f o r th e c o n te n tio n s m a d e , w ith a p p ro p ria te c itatio n s to aut ho ri t i es and t o t he reco rd”). T heref o re, we wi l l co nst rue B row n’ s argum ent s und er t he f ed eral l y creat ed pro ced ure se t f o rth in the A c t. S e e Win sh ip v . G a rg iu lo , 7 6 1 S .W .2 d 3 0 1 , 3 0 1 (T e x . 1 9 8 8 ) ( p e r c u ria m ) (“ T h e c o u rt o f ap p e a ls a ttem p te d to c la ssi fy th is a c tio n a s e ithe r a m o tio n fo r n e w trial o r a b ill o f re v ie w . It i s n e ithe r. T h e sta tute c le a rly creat es a di st i nct ri ght f o r whi ch rel i ef

m ay b e sought
. ”).
3 ... B row n al so argues t he d ef aul t judgm ent s ho ul d be s et asi d e b ecause o f t h e “ c u m u la tive ef

f ect ” o f m any errors , i ncl ud i ng no reco rd o f the d ef aul t pro ceed i ngs, no aff i d avi t of l ast know n ad d res s, and no aff i d avi t ref

l ect i ng B r own’ s ac t i ve dut y s t at us . B r own, howev er , ci t es no se para t e a ut hor i t y , ot her t han t he Ser vi cememb er s Ci vi l Rel i ef A c t, tha t t h e se p ro c e d u ra l er ro rs w o u ld e n tit le him to the re lief so u g h t. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 8
. 1 (i ).

- 2- D I S CUS S I ON Although B rown pre sents four separate i ssues on appea l, his complaint is that the trial court
err ed in deny

ing his motion to set aside a defa ult judg ment enter ed ag ainst him in vi olation of the S ervice me mbe rs Civ il Re lie f A c t. 2 T h e A c t p r o te c ts a c ti v e me mb e r s o f th e ar me d s e r v ic es fr om havin ga de fa ult jud g me nt e nte re d a g a ins t th e m in a ny c ivi l a c tio n o r p ro c e e din g , in c lud inga c hil d custody proce eding
. Id. § 521(a)
. Her e, the parties agree that Br own was a n active duty

member of the Un ite d Stat e s Ar

my at the tim e he wa s se rv e d w iththe un de rl yingsu it a ff e c tin gthe pa

re nt- c hil d relationship (“SAPC R”). The rec ord also confirms that, despite the petition r efle ctingthat Br own
was on active duty in the milit ary , the trial court did not appoint counsel to r epre sent Br own bef ore rende ringthe def

ault order in violation of the require ments under the Act. Id. § 521(b)( 2) (“ I f in an action cove red by

this section i t appea

rs t hat t he defenda

nt is in milit ary service , the cour t may not enter a [default] judgment until after t h e co u rt appoints an attorne y to repre sent the def

endant.” ). Ac c or din g ly , b e c a

us e the tr ia l court

e rr e d b y fa ili ngto e nf

or c e the mand ator

y pr ov isi on s o f t

he Ac t, Br own m aintains the re sulting def ault judgme nt must be set aside. Id. § 521(g ). 3 Appellee , Tarr a L atr ise Au sti n, re sp on ds tha t B ro wn ha s f a ile d to de mon str ate his e nti tle me nt to r e lie f u nd e r t he Ac t. We ag ree with appellee
.04

- 08

- 00 62 5- CV

- 3- A def ault judgme nt taken ag ainst a ser vicemembe r may b e vacated or set a side only upon application by

or on beha lf of the a ffe cted s er v i ce m em b er. Id. § 521(g )(1) . A def ault judgme nt enter ed without following all require ments of t he Ac t is voidable, not void. Hawkins v. Hawkins , 999 S.W .2d 171, 174 (Tex. App.—Austin 1999, no pe t .). In order to reope n the judg ment, the
a g g ri e ve d s e rv ic e me mbe r m us t su ff ic ie ntl y de mon str ate to th e cou rt th at ( 1) he wa s mate ri a lly
a f f e c t e d b y r e a s o n o f h i s m i l i t ar y s e r v i c e i n m ak i n g a d e f

e n s e t o th e a c t i o n ; a nd(2 ) h e ha s a
mer it ori ou s o r l egal d efen se t o t he act io n. S ervi cem emb ers Ci vi l R eli ef Act§ 5 21 (g)(1)( A)-( B)

. Ba sed on the re cord be fore us, Br own has fa iled to demonstrate e ither prong
. Re le va nt p or tio ns of B ro wn ’s a ff

ida vit fi le d in su pp or t of his mot ion

to s e t a sid e the de fa

ult judgme nt state:

Iwas ser ved on For

t McPherson, Georg ia, an active duty milit ary installation. Iwas in full duty

uniform when I was serve d on or about Oc tober 31, 2006 with the above pe tition and a notice of hear ing on temporar y order s which had be en set for the ear lier date of Oc tober 24, 2006. Idid not fully

understand what the Petitioner wa s seekingas I had alr eady been to Court in the Superior Court of Henr y County , State of Georg ia, . . . and I had been or dere d to pay

child support of $412.00 per month starting June 1, 2005.

. . . . Idid no t le arn o f the Or de r i n th e a bo ve laws uit

until late Au gus t or

e arl y September 2007 when I

lear ned that a new employ er’ s order had bee n issued raising my chil d support. Until that tim e fr ame, I was not aw are that a def ault order had been issued a g ainst me.

. . . .

. . . M y a pp e ara nc e and a bil ity to p re se nt a de fens e in the a bo ve laws uit duri ngthe tim e fr ame in qu e sti on wa s mate ri a lly a ff e c te d by my mil ita

ry dutie s a s I was pre paringfor de ploy

ment to Iraq a

nd did, in fac t, deploy

to Iraq dur ing the period mid Febr uary to May 2007. Br o wn ’s af

fi d av i tac kn o wl ed ges h e w as p ro p er l y s erv edwi thth e l aw s u i t , an d h adac tu al kn o wl ed ge of the suit six wee ks prior to the def ault judgme nt be ing enter ed on Dec ember 18, 2006. The re cord04

- 08

- 00 62 5- CV

- 4- further confirms B rown took no steps to file an answe r or otherwise protect his interests under the Act. See id. § 521(f) (ser vicemembe r who re ceive s actua l notice of the action, may reque st a stay of proc eeding s). Althoug h Br own’s af fidavit rec ites that he was “ materia lly aff ecte d” by his mil itary service , he fa ils to explain how or why his mil itary

service , or eve n his prepar ation for de ploy ment in Iraq, prejudiced his ability to file an answe r or other wise protec t his int ere sts during the six wee ks afte r service of the suit unti l the defa ult judgment wa s entere d in Dece mber 2006. The mere fac t of service alone or

even that Brown was prepa ring for deploy

ment overse as is not sufficie nt to mee t the require ments of the Act. Under the clea r wording of the statute, the service member must show more than ac tive milit ary

duty to be entitled t o reope n the judg ment. Id. § 521(g )(1) (A)- (B ). To mee t the first prong , the statute re quires a showing that the servic emember was “ materia lly

aff ecte d by reason of that mili tary servic e in ma king a defe nse to the action.” Id. ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. Iti s n o t e w o rth y, ba se d o n h is a ff

ida vit , that he wa s n ot d e plo y e d o uts ide of the c ontin e nta l U nit e d St ate s d ur ingthi s time period, and instead, beg an his de ploy ment to I raq in mid-F ebrua

ry 2007. Fur

thermore , during the hear ing on Br own’s motion to set aside the defa ult judgment, counse l for B rown a dmitted that B ro wn c on su lte d h im i nit ia lly

fo r l e g a l a d

vic e so on a ft e r B ro wn

wa s se rv e d w iththe SAP CR la ws uit , but di d n ot h ir e him

at th at ti me. Based on th e re c or d b e fo re us , w e ho ld B ro wn did no t me e t hi s burden of showingthat he wa s materia lly aff ecte d by rea son of hi s milit ary service in answer ing a nd defe nding the S AP C R s u it. Se eW ins hip v . G ar

gu illo , 754 S.W .2d 360, 364 (Tex. App.—Waco) (fa cts did not establish prejudice when ther e was no evidenc e soldier wa s unable to file a n answe r or obtain leave to “take car e of this lawsuit” by rea son of his mili tary

service ), wr i t denied, 761 S.W .2d 301 (Tex. 1988) (per curiam).04

- 08

- 00 62 5- CV

- 5- Moreove r, B rown’s motion to set aside the de fault judg ment was de ficient a s to the requ ir ement

of sh ow inga

me ri tor iou s d e fe ns e . Se rv ic e me mbe rs Civ il Re lie f A c t § 5 21 (g )( 1) (B) (“[T]he court entering the j udg ment shall, upon application by or on beha lf of the se rvice member, reope n the judg ment for the purpose of allowing the service member to defe nd the ac tion if i t ap pe ar s that
. . . th e s e r

v ic e me mb e r h a s a me r it o r io u s o r le g a l d e f e n s e to th e a c ti o n o r s o me p art of it.” )
. Her e, Br o wn ’s af

fidavit wholly

fails to decla

re that he has a

g ood and mer itorious defense to the SAPC R suit at is sue. While Brown states in his affidavit there e x isted a pr ev ious Georg ia orde r enter ed in J une 2005 esta blishing child support, he does not state how or why that order

would be a def ense to the SAPCR suit . This fails t o meet the statutory require ments of the Ac t. Id. ; cf. Bake r
v . G old sm ith , 58 2 S .W. 2d

40 4, 40 8 ( Te x. 19 79 ) ( c on c lud inga bil l of re vie w c omp la ina

nt m us t “alleg e, wi t h particula

rity , sworn fa cts sufficie nt to constitut e def ense a nd, as a pr etrial matter , prese nt prima fac ie proof to support the c ontention”). B e c a us e B ro wn

fa ile d to de mon str ate e nti tle me nt t o r e lie f u nd e r t he Se rv ic e me mbe rs Civ il Relief Ac t, we hold the trial c ourt corr ectly ref used to set aside the defa

ult judgment. C ONCL US I ON Acc ording ly , the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.
Phylis J . Speedlin, J ustice