### NUM BER 13-07- 0052 6-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C OR P U S C H R I S T I - E D I N B U R G

M IGUE L REG A LA DO, A pp ellan t,

v . N O E M I B
. G U E R RA A/ K/A N O E H M I B
. G U E R RA A/ K/A NOE HM I B . R EGA LA DO, A pp ellee.

On a p p ea l f ro m 10 7t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of C amero n Co un ty , T exas .


## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s Y añ ez an d Be na v ide s

M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice Ya ñe z The tr ial co urt aw ard ed real proper ty ow ned by

appel lan t, Mi g uel R eg ala do, t o app ellee, Noem i B. G u e rr a a/k/ a Noeh mi B. Gu erra a/k/a Noehm i B. Regalado, inSee T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C OD E A NN
. § 31. 002( a) (Ver non 2008) (a l l owi ng a par t y t hat has al r eady 1 s ec ure d a fi na l j ud gm en t t o c ol l ec t t he j ud gm en t t hro ug h a se pa rat e c ou rt proc ee di ng ).

W e no t e t hat al t hough R egal ado' s not i ce of appeal i s fr om an or der si gned by t he t r i al cour t on June 2 21, 200 7, i n hi s br i ef , R egal ado nei t her m ent i ons n or com pl ai ns oft he June 21 j udgm ent

. I nst ead, R egal ado at t acks t he v al i di t y of a def aul t j udgm ent i n f av or of G uer r a si gned on Sept em ber 2, 199 7, whi ch ser v ed a s th e b a s i s o f th e J u n e 2 1 ju d g m e n t.

R egal ado di d no t app eal f r om t he 1997 def aul t j udgm ent and has not fi l ed a not i ce ofapp eal of t hat 3 ju d g m e n t.

R e g a l a d o d i d n o t a p p e a l th e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. 4 2 s at i s fac ti on o f a de bt

. B y tw o i s s ue s , R eg al ad o ap pe al s
. W e affi r m. 1 2

I. B A CKGRO UND On A pr il 12, 2006, Guer ra , a j u d gm e nt c re dit or , fil ed an appl ic ati on for tur nov er relief , requesting turnover of real prop erty owned by Regalado in satisfaction of a def ault jud g men t e n te re d i n fav or of Guer ra on S eptember 2, 1997. R eg ala do fil ed a g eneral

3 deni al in Ma y

2006, and then filed hi s first a m e n ded bi ll of re v iew on J uly 10, 2006, alleging, amon g oth er things, tha t he h ad n ot be en p rope rly serv ed wi th citat ion of

process before en try

of the 19 97 d efault judgme nt. In resp onse to Regalado 's bill of rev iew , Gue rra filed a mot ion for s ummary j udg ment, w hic h the tr ial co urt g ra nted on M ar ch 7, 20 07. 4 The tr ial co urt grant ed Gu er ra 's appl ic ati on for tur nov er reli ef on M ay

31, 2006, orde ring Regalado to turn over to Gue rra's t ri a l c o u n sel "all records an d do cum ent s"
re g ardin g hi s real p ro p e rt y
. The tr ial co urt t hen s ig ned a jud g ment on June 21, 2 007, findi ng thatR eg ala do ow ed G u e rra $28, 041.83, w hic h i ncl uded t he or ig ina l amount
a wa rd e d in the 199 7 de fault jud gmen t plus inte rest and atto rney fee s, grant ing Guerra's "re q uestfor l evy in sat is facti on of t he $28,041 .83," and order ing R eg ala do's "real proper ty
aw arded t o [G uer ra ] i n s ati sfacti on of the debt ow ed to her by [R eg ala do]." On Au gust 21, 20 07, Regalado f iled his not ice of app eal; h owev er, the notice didSee T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 25. 1( d) ( pr ov i di ng t hat t he n ot i ce of app eal m ust i ncl ude t he d at e of t he j udgm ent 5 or ord er t he ap pe l l an t i s ap pe al i ng ). 3 not "s tate the d ate o f the j udg ment or order " from w hic h R eg ala do w as appeal ing

. O n 5 Nov ember

15, 2007, thi s C our

t i nformed R eg ala do th a t hi s a ttempt ed appe al of the jud g ment ent ered on June 21, 2007, appeared to be u nti mely

. Reg ala do w as ins tr uct ed to cor re ct the d efect, and t his C our t aba ted t he c ase and remanded i t t o the tr ial co urt t o deter mine w hen R eg ala do recei v ed not ic e of the tr ial co urt' s j udg ment. The tr ial co urt hel d a hear ing on D ecember 13, 2007, to de ter mine w hen R eg ala do
re cei v ed not ic e of the judg ment. At the hear ing , Reg ala do's tri al coun sel testi fied th at t he district clerk did not ma il the June 21 judgmen t unt il July 31, 200 7, and that he receiv ed it in the mai l on Aug ust3, 2007. On Dec ember 13, 2007, the t ri al cour t s ig ned an "Order

on Motion to D ete rmine T ime of Notice of Judgme nt" conta ining the followi ng "f indings of fact
a n d c o n clu si ons of law ": (1 ) "The ju dg ment w as si g ned by the [tr ial ] c our

t on June 21, 2007"; (2 ) "The Di str ic t C ler k mai led noti ce of t he jud g ment to couns el for bot h par ti es on Jul y 31, 2007, forty -o ne ( 41) day s a fter t he j udg ment w as si g ned [ by] t he [t ri al] co urt"; (3 ) "[A]t tor ney

for R eg ala do recei v ed not ic e of the jud g ment on Aug ust3, 2007"; and ( 4) "[A] s a matt er of law [R eg ala do's att or ney] file d timel y noti ce of appeal after

hav ing recei v ed noti ce of the j udg ment." II. D I S CUS S I ON By his firs t and sec ond is sues , Reg ala do cont ends that the t ri al cour t "er re d" w hen ite n t e re d a d e fa u ltju d gm e n ta ga in s th im in t h e u n d e rl yi n g 1 9 9 7 ca s e
. Sp e c if ic a ll y, Regalado alleges that in th at case , "no Return of Citation exists, of

record, wh ich af f irmatively

shows serv ice of

cita tion" a nd th at Gu erra "failed to af f irmatively

show strictSee T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 2 6 .1 ( a ) ( A n o tic e o f a p p e a l m u s t b e f ile d "w ith in 3 0 d a ys a f te r th e ju d g m e n t is 6 s i g n e d "); i d. R . 2 6 .1 ( c ) ( p r o v id in g th a t in a r e s tr ic te d a p p e a l, th e p a r ty m u s t f ile th e n o tic e o fa p p e a l w ith in s ix m on t hs aft er t he j ud gm en t i s si gn ed ).

See I n r e Vl asak , 141 S

. W

. 3d 233, 238 n. 10 ( T ex. A pp. –San A nt oni o 2004, or i g. pr oceedi ng) ( " D i r ect 7 at t acks i n t he t r i al cour t i ncl ude t he g r ant i ng o fa m ot i on f or new t r i al and a bi l l of r ev i ew. Di r ect at t acks i n t he C our t of

Appeal s i ncl ude an o r di nar y app eal , a n ap peal by wr i t of er r or [ now r est r i ct ed a ppeal ] , and an appea l

. . . f r om a bi l l of r ev i ew j udgm ent

. " ) ( quot i ng G l u n z v. H er nande z , 9 08 S. W

. 2d 2 53, 255 n. 3 ( T ex. A pp
. –S an A nton i o 1 99 5, w ri t de ni ed )) (i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ) ( bra c k ets i n o ri gi na l ).

Ev en i fwe wer e ab l e t o con st r ue Regal ado' s not i ce of app eal as an a t t em pt t o appea l t he 1 997 8 d e f a u lt j u d g m e n t, th e a p p e a l is u n tim e ly b e c a u s e R e g a la d o d id n o t f ile a n o tic e o fa p p e a l w ith in th ir ty d a ys o r w i th i n s i x m o n th s o f th e ju d g m e n t a s re q u i re d b y ru l e 2 6 .1

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 26

. 1(a ), (c).

I n r e Vlasak , 1 4 1 S .W .3 d a t 2 3 8 n .1 0 ( e x p la in in g th a t t h e a v e n u e s o fd ir e c t a tt a c k o n a d e f a u lt 9 j ud gm en t are l i m i t ed an d t ha t a pa rt y sh ou l d e i t he r f i l e a m oti on for ne w t ri al or bi l l of revi ew i n t he t ri al co urt or fi l e a n a pp ea l or r es t ri c t ed ap pe al i n t he co urt of ap pe al s w he n c ha l l en gi ng a d efa ul t j ud gm en t ).

S e e C r a w fo rdv . M c D o n a ld , 88 T ex. 626 , 33 S. W

. 325, 327 (1 895) (" A di r ect at t ack on a j udgm ent 10 i s an at t em pt t o am end, cor r ect , r ef or m , v acat e, or enj oi n t he execut i on o fsam e, i n a pr oceedi ng i nst i t ut ed f or t hat pur pose, such as a m ot i on f or a r ehear i ng, an appea l , som e f or m ofw r i t ofer r or , a bi l l ofr ev i ew, an i nj unct i on t o r est rai n i t s e x ec uti on, et c. A col l at er al at t ack on a j udgm ent i s an at t em pt t o av oi d i t s bi ndi ng fo rc e in a p ro c e e d i n g n o t i n s ti tu te d f o r o n e o f th e p u rp o s e s a fo re s a i d

. . . ."); H ar r is v. Bal der

as , 27 S. W

. 3d 7 1 , 7 3 (T e x . A p p .– S a n A n to n i o 2 0 0 0 , p e t. d e n i e d ) ("W e h a v e d e fin e d ' c o l l a te ra l a tt a c k ' a s ' a n a tte m p t t o i m peach a j udgm ent off er ed a s ev i dence ofsom e r i ght , ' and as ' an a t t em pt t o av oi d [ a j udgm ent ' s] bi ndi ng f o r c e in a p r o c e e d in g n o t in s tit u te d f o r th e p u r p o s e o fc o r r e c tin g , m o d if yin g , o r v a c a tin g it , b u t in o r d e r to o b ta in som e spe ci f i c r el i efaga i nst whi ch t he j udgm ent st ands as a bar

. " ) ( i nt er nal ci t at i ons and quot at i ons o m i t t ed) (brac k ets i n o ri gi na l ).

See Brow ni

ng v. Prost ok , 1 6 5 S .W .3 d 3 3 6 , 3 4 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 5 ) ("C o l l a te ra l a tta c k s o n fi n a l ju d g m e n ts 11 are ge ne ral l y di s al l ow ed be c au s e i t i s t he po l i c y of t he l aw t o g i ve fi na l i t y t o t he j ud gm en t s of t he co urt s
. " ). 4 compl ian ce w it h the Tex as Rul es o f Ci v il Procedu re reg ardin g i ss uance of ci tati on,
ser v ic e[,] and re tur n of proces s." Throug h thi s appeal , Reg ala do attempt s to attac k the 1997 default ju d gment; how ev er , he has not fil ed a noti ce of appeal from t hat j udg ment. Therefore, Reg ala do has 6 notp erfecte d his app eal in tha t case. Furthe rmore , any attem pt by Reg alad o at a d irect attac k on t he 1997 default jud g ment on appeal is unti mely

. Al thoug h R eg ala do per fected 7 8 a time ly app eal of

the Jun e 21 judgmen t, h e a t t em pts to app eal f rom th e 19 97 d efault judgme nt. Reg alad o's issues cha llenging the 199 7 j udgm entdue to imp rope r serv ice

9

re presenta c oll ateral attac k o n a fin al jud g ment, w hic h g enerall y i s n ot al low ed. 10 11I d. at 346

. 12
I d. (ci t ati on s an d i nterna l qu otat i on s om i t t ed ). 13
Im a ta n i v . M a r

m o le jo , 60 6 S

. W

. 2d 71 0, 71 3 (T ex
. C i v. A pp
. –C orp us C hri s t i 19 80 , no w ri t ). 14
I d. 15 See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 239

. 16 5 A col la t e ra l a t tack, h owev er, is permissible if a jud gmen t is v oid. A judgmen t is 12

v oid "onl y w hen it is apparent that the cour t re nder ing jud g ment had no j ur is dicti on of the par ti es or proper ty , no jur is dicti on of the subj ectmatter, n o j u ris dicti on to ente r the par ti cul ar judg ment, or no capac ity to act ." Al thoug h R eg ala do c ontends thathe d id not

13

re cei v e proper ser

v ic e, "[i ]t is the thoroug hly est abl is hed ru le in thi s sta te that a defendant

w ho i s n ot ser

v ed w it h proces s and w ho does not make a ny appearance at t he tr ial may not, as a matt er

of publ icpol icy , at tac k t he v er it y o f a j u dg ment i n a c oll ateral attac k." 14 Fur ther more, [i ]t is eq ual ly

w ell -s ettl ed th at, as ag ain st a c oll atera l a tt a ck , a cl ear and defini te reci tal i n the judg ment on jur is dicti onal m atters is concl usi v e of the is sue of jur is dicti on, i mport s a bsol ute v er ity and no ev ide nce of any ki nd, n ot e v e n t h e re ma i n d e r o f t h e r e c o rd , w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n c o n t ra d i c t i o n t h e r e o f, ev en th oug h s uch ev ide nce w oul d s how t h a t juri sdi cti on w as not, in fact, acq uired.[ ]

15 Here, i n the 1997 default jud g ment, the t ri al cour t found t hat i t had j ur is dicti on and
v enue ov er

the cas e, "t hat c it ati on as to Res pondent [R eg ala do] ha[d] been on fil e w it h the Clerk of the Court for m ore tha n ten d ays prece ding t he hea ring," a nd tha t pursua nt to rule 239 of the ru les of ci v il procedu re , G uer ra w as enti tl ed to default jud g ment. Therefore, 16 based on t he tr ial co urt' s fin din g that it had jur is dicti on and that Reg ala do had been s er v ed
w it h c it ati on of proces s, w e c oncl ude t hat R eg ala d o 's att empted c oll ateral attac k o n theSee Jor dan v. Texaco Pac. C oal & O i l C o. , 152 S. W

. 2d 8 75, 879 ( T ex. C i v
. App. –Am ar i l l o 19 41, 17 wr i t re f ' d) (" A r eci t at i on o r f i ndi ng t hat t he d ef endan t was ser v ed, or by ot her m eans such a s wai v er of ci t at i on w as be fore t he co urt , su c h fi nd i ng i m po rt s veri t y an d m ay no t be i m pe ac he d b y ot he r part s of t he rec ord

. " ). 6 199 7 de fault jud gmen t mu st fail. W e overr ule Regalad o's tw o issues. 17 III
. C ONCL US I ON R eg al ad o ha s n otc ha l l en g ed t he J un e 21 j ud g me nt ; th erefo r e, w e affi r m.

LIN DA R EY NA Y AÑ EZ J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 22nd da y

of Apr il , 201 0.