Affirm and Opinion Filed August 3, 2022 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00123-CV 

SAMUELS AND SONS, LLC AND SSL CONSULT, LLC, Appellants 

V. 

CAROLINE WILLIAMSON, MARY TUCKER, AND JACOB SHARP, 

Appellees 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-00796-D 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Nowell 

Opinion by Justice Nowell 

Appellants Samuels and Sons, LLC and SSL Consult, LLC filed this restricted 

appeal from a no-answer default judgment entered in favor of appellees Caroline 

Williamson, Mary Tucker, and Jacob Sharp. In a single issue, appellants assert the 

trial court erred by granting the default judgment because they were not properly 

served and they were not on notice of the suit at the time the default judgment was 

entered. We conclude appellants have failed to show error on the face of the record. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 
–2–

Appellees sued appellants for breach of contract and violations of the Texas 

Property Code. Plaintiffs’ Original Petition states that each appellant is a Texas 

limited liability company, and the petition provides the name and address for each 

appellant’s registered agent. Pursuant to Texas Business Organizations Code section 

5.251, appellees served appellants through the Texas Secretary of State. The 

Secretary of State’s certificates of service show that the Secretary received copies of 

the citations and Plaintiffs’ Original Petition and then forwarded the documents to 

appellants’ registered agents via certified mail; however, the documents were 

returned to the Secretary bearing the notation “Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as 

Addressed, Unable to Forward.” Appellees moved for default judgment against 

appellants, which the trial court granted. This restricted appeal followed. 

To prevail on a restricted appeal, the appellant must establish four elements: 

(1) it filed the appeal within six months after judgment was signed; (2) it was a party 

to the lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment 

complained of, and it 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. Pike-Grant v. Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam); see also

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30. The fourth element is at issue here. 

In a restricted appeal, we do not presume that citation was validly issued, 

served, or returned. Convergence Aviation, Inc. v. Onala Aviation, LLC, No. 05-19-

00067-CV, 2020 WL 29716, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 2, 2020, no pet.) (mem. 
–3–

op.) (citing Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Redbud 115 Land Trust, 452 S.W.3d 868, 871 

(Tex. App.—Dallas 2014, pet. denied)). Instead, the plaintiff must prove that each 

element of service was proper. Id. (citing Redbud 115 Land Trust, 452 S.W.3d at 

871). When a plaintiff relies on service through the Secretary of State, the record 

must show that (1) the defendant was amenable to service through the Secretary of 

State, and (2) the defendant was served in the manner required by the statute. Id. 

(citing Redbud 115 Land Trust, 452 S.W.3d at 871). 

The Texas Business Organizations Act requires all filing entities to “designate 

and continuously maintain” a registered agent and registered office in the state. TEX.

BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 5.201(a). A registered agent is “an agent of the entity on 

whom may be served any process.” Id. § 5.201(b)(1). Service on a business entity 

through the Secretary of State is appropriate when the entity fails to appoint or does 

not maintain a registered agent in the state or the registered agent cannot with 

reasonable diligence be found at the registered office of the entity. See id. § 5.251(1); 

see also Convergence Aviation, Inc., 2020 WL 29716, at *3. Service on the Secretary 

of State pursuant to section 5.251 is effected by delivering to the Secretary duplicate 

copies of the process, notice, or demand and accompanying the copies with any fee 

required by law. See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 5.252(a). After service is made 

in compliance with section 5.252, the Secretary must send one copy of the process 

to the named entity; the notice must be addressed to the most recent address of the 

entity on file with the Secretary and must be sent by certified mail, return receipt 
–4–

requested. See id. § 5.253. A certificate of service from the Secretary of State 

conclusively establishes that process was served. Convergence Aviation, Inc., 2020 

WL 29716, at *3 (citing Campus Invs., Inc. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. 

2004) (per curiam) (“When substituted service on a statutory agent is allowed, the 

designee is not an agent for serving but for receiving process on the defendant’s 

behalf.”)); see also Pirate Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Cunningham, 631 S.W.3d 421, 

427 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2021, no pet.) (“The certificate of the secretary of state 

constitutes conclusive evidence that process was served.”). “Service of process on 

the Secretary of State is considered proper when the Secretary forwarded the citation 

and petition to the address in the petition, even if the face of the record shows the 

defendant did not receive the citation and petition.” Convergence Aviation, Inc., 

2020 WL 29716, at *3 (citing Amor Real Estate Inv., Inc. v. AWC, Inc., No. 05-15-

00887-CV, 2016 WL 2753572, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 10, 2016, no pet.) 

(mem. op.); BLS Limousine Serv., Inc. v. Buslease, Inc., 680 S.W.2d 543, 546 (Tex. 

App.—Dallas 1984, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (en banc) (service through Secretary of State 

was valid even though certificate from Secretary stated the citations were returned 

with the notation “refused”)). Further, when service on the Secretary of State is 

authorized, the receipt of service by the Secretary constitutes constructive notice of 

the lawsuit to the defendant. Convergence Aviation, Inc., 2020 WL 29716, at *3 

(citing AWC, Inc., 2016 WL 2753572, at *2). 
–5–

In this restricted appeal, appellants assert they were not properly served 

because “the returns of service indicate that the certified mailings sent by the Texas 

Secretary of State were returned to the Texas Secretary of State bearing the notation 

of ‘Return to Sender, Unclaimed, Unable to Forward.’” Additionally, they argue, the 

return of service must contain the return receipt with the addressee’s signature, but 

such receipts were not part of the return of service in this case because the mail was 

not delivered to appellants. 

Appellants were served pursuant to section 5.251. The record reflects that, 

after the Secretary received copies of the petition and citation, the Secretary fulfilled 

its statutory duty by forwarding the process to appellants’ registered agents at their 

registered offices by certified mail. See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE ANN. § 5.253. After 

doing so, when the Secretary of State filed certifications stating it received the 

process and forwarded it to the registered agents’ addresses, those certifications were 

conclusive proof, absent evidence of fraud or mistake, that process was properly 

served in compliance with the Code. See Campus Invs., Inc. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 

464, 465 (Tex. 2004); see also Capitol Brick, Inc. v. Fleming Mfg. Co., 722 S.W.2d 

399, 401 (Tex. 1986). The fact that the process was returned to the Secretary as 

undeliverable does not alter this analysis. See Convergence Aviation, Inc., 2020 WL 

29716, at *3-4. 

The Secretary’s certificate here conclusively proves valid service on 

appellants. See Campus Invs., 144 S.W.3d at 466; Black v. Lakeland W. Capital 
–6–

XXIII, LLC, No. 05-20-00831-CV, 2022 WL 2680610, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

July 12, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.). Further, the receipt of service by the Secretary 

constitutes constructive notice of the lawsuit to appellants. Convergence Aviation, 

Inc., 2020 WL 29716, at *3 (citing AWC, Inc., 2016 WL 2753572, at *2). 

We conclude the face of the record does not show appellants were not properly 

served. Appellants have not met their burden to satisfy the fourth element of a 

restricted appeal, that error is apparent on the face of the record. We overrule 

appellants’ sole issue. 

We affirm the trial court’s judgment. 

210123f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell// 

ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
–7–

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

SAMUELS AND SONS, LLC AND 

SSL CONSULT, LLC, Appellants 

No. 05-21-00123-CV V. 

CAROLINE WILLIAMSON, 

MARY TUCKER, AND JACOB 

SHAPE, Appellees

On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-00796-

D.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. 

Justices Partida-Kipness and 

Pedersen, III participating.

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

court is AFFIRMED. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees CAROLINE WILLIAMSON, MARY 

TUCKER, AND JACOB SHAPE recover their costs of this appeal from appellants 

SAMUELS AND SONS, LLC AND SSL CONSULT, LLC, Appellants 

Judgment entered this 3rd day of August 2022.