### NUM BER 13-09- 0062 0-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
IN THE INTEREST OF E. E. F., A CHILD
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 24 th D is tr ic t C o u rt of C alh ou n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es B en av id es a n d V el a M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez In t his r est ri cte d appea l, appel lan t, R a mo n Al ber t Sa nchez , c omplai ns about the t ri al
co u rt ’s gr anti ng of a defaultj udg ment i n fav or of appel lee s, the O ff ic e of the Atto rn ey Gen eral of

Te x as (the “ Atto rney General’s Of f ice”) and Heat her Farni. T he d ef ault jud g ment, entered on Ma y 26, 2009, conc lud ed th at Sa n ch e z i s t he bi olo g ic al father of E.E. F. and , am ong oth er things, orde red Sanche z to pay child supp ort and med ical supp ort to Far ni. By

o n e i s s u e , S a n c h e zc o n t e n d s t h a tt h e d e fa u l tj u d g me n ts h o u l d b e v a c a t ed and t he ca u se remanded for furth er proceed ing s i n the tr ial co urt bec ause “t he r etur n of2

ci tati on w as not o n fil e ten day s pr ior to t he g ra nt of defaultj udg ment, as re q uired by l aw .” W e r ev erse and remand. I. B A CKGRO UND On M ar ch 10, 2 009, the Attor ney Gene ra l’ s O ff ic e fil ed a “P eti ti on to Es tabl is h the Par ent- Chi ld Rel ati onshi p,” req uest ing the tr ial courtto deter mine w hether Sanchezi s t he biological fath er of

E.E.F. T he trial cou rt set the hea ring for the At torne y Gene ral’s Off ice’s peti ti on for Ma y

26, 2009. P ri o r to t h e Ma y 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 h e a ri n g, t h e A t t o rn e y G e n e ra l’ s O f f ic e a t t e m p t e d t o se rve Sanc hezw it h c it ati on athis pla ce of employ ment i n H oust on, H ar ri s C ounty , Tex as. The citation conta ined in the record has a f ile stam p of June 26, 20 09, and ref lects tha t serv ice
w as re tu rn e d o n M a y 2 6, 20 09. How ev er , ano ther nota ti on on the c it ati on r eflect s t hat Sanc hezw as ser

v ed on Ma rc h 30, 2009. I n any ev ent, Sanc hezmai ntai ns on appe al that he nei ther re cei v ed ser

v ic e of t he Atto rn ey

Gene ra l’ s O ff ic e’s peti ti on, n or noti ce of the M ay 26, 2 009 hea ri ng
. As a r esul t, Sanc heznev er fil ed an answ er

i n thi s c ase. On May2 6, 20 09 , th e tr i al c ou rt c on du c te d a he ar i ng o n th e At to r ne y G en eral ’s Off ic e’s peti ti on ev en th oug h Sanc hezdid not appear

. The tr ial co urt: ( 1) dete rmi ned t hat Sanc hezi s t he bi olo g ic al father of E.E. F. ; (2 ) appoi nted Far ni and Sa nchezas j oin t
ma naging conservators and g rante d Farni the power to de t e rm in e the child’s primary residen ce; (3) ordered Sanch ez to pa y $22 2 per mo nth in ch ild su ppo rt, 5 0% of t he co st of healt h c ar e for E.E. F. , and $24 p e r m o n th i n “ cas h medi cal su ppor t” ; and ( 4) order ed Sanc hez to pay $7,170 in back ch il d s uppor

t, dati ng from M ar ch 20, 2 006 t o the date of the h e a rin g. Sanc hezdi d notfil e any pos t- jud g ment moti ons or

req uestany

findi ng s o f f actor conclu sions of

law . On Novembe r 10 , 200 9, San chez f iled his not ice of restricted ap pea l.R ul e 26

. 1( a) of t he T exas Rul es of

Appel l at e Pr ocedur e pr ov i des t hat a not i ce of appea l m ust be 1 f ile d w ith in n in e ty d a ys a f te r t h e j u d g m e n t h a s b e e n s ig n e d ifa n y p a r ty tim e ly f ile s : ( 1 ) a m o tio n f o r n e w tr ia l; ( 2) a m ot i on t o m odi f y t he j udgm ent ; ( 3) a m ot i on t o r ei nst at e under T exas Rul e of C i v i l Pr ocedur e 16 5a; or ( 4 ) a r e q u e s t f o r f in d in g s o ff a c t a n d c o n c lu s io n s o fla w ifs u c h a r e q u e s t w a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e r u le s o fc iv il p ro c e d u re o r c o u l d p ro p e rly b e c o n s i d e re d b y th e a p p e l l a te c o u rt. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26

. 1(a ).

T he t r i al cour t si gn ed the c om pl ai ned- ofor der on M ay 26, 200 9, and Sanchez f i l ed h i s not i ce of 2 appea l on N ov em ber 11, 200 9, wi t hi n si x m ont hs of M ay 26, 200 9. 3 See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26.1( c) , 30. II. R E S TR I CT E D A P P E AL To attac k a tr ial cour

t’ s jud g ment by re str ic ted appeal , Sanc hez must show that: ( 1)
a noti ce of ap peal w as filed w it hin si x months of the d ate t he c omplai ned- of judg ment w as si g ned; (2 ) Sanc hezw as a par ty to t h e s u it w ho di d notpar ti ci pate in the h ear ing that
re sul ted i n the j udg ment or order ; ( 3) Sanc hezdi d notti mely fil e a p ost -j udg ment moti on,
r eq ue s t fi nd i ng s o f fac t an d c on c lusions of l aw , or fi l e a no ti c e of a pp ea l w i th i n th e ti me per mitt ed unde r ru le 26.1( a) of th e T e xas R ule s o f Appell ate P ro cedure; and (4 ) the 1 compl ain ed- of er ro r is appar ent from the face of t he re cord. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 30; see Alexander

v. Ly nda’ s B outi que , 134 S.W .3d 845 , 848 (Tex. 2004 ); T ex. D e p ’ t o f Pu b. Saf ety v. Fredricks , 235 S.W .3d 275 , 278 (Tex. App. –Corpu s Ch ri sti 200 7, no pet. ); se e als o T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 26. 1(c). San chez filed his notice o f app eal w ithin six

mon ths of

t he dat e tha t the trial court si g ned t he order

. Sa nchezi s a proper par ty to thi s s uitbec ause he was named i n the 2 Atto rney General’s Of

f ice’s petitio n as the pote ntial biological fath er o f E.E.F. T he reco rd
re fl e c t s t h a t S a n c h e z d i d n o t p a rt i c i p a t e i n t h e M a y 2 6 , 2 0 0 9 h e a r i n g
. I n h i s n oti ce of restricted a ppe al, San chez states th at he did not f ile a ny po st-judgme nt m otion s, request findi ng s o f f actand conc lus ion s o f law , or fil e a n oti ce of appeal , and the re cord does not show otherwi se. Finally , as add ressed below and con cede d by the Atto rney General’s Of f ice, the comp lained -of

error—the de fect i n serv ice of citation —is app aren t f rom th e f aceT he At t or ney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce does ar gue t hat Sanchez i s not ent i t l ed t o t he r equest i n hi s pr ay er 3 th a t “a l l re l i e f s o u g h t b y A p p e l l e e b e d e n i e d ” a n d th a t th e f a m i l y c o d e p ro h i b i ts th e a s s e s s m e n t o f a p p e l l a te cost s aga i nst t he At t or ney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce. Because we do n ot add r ess t he u nder l y i ng m er i t s of t he At t or ney G e n e r a l’s O f f ic e ’s p e tit io n p e r ta in in g to th e p a r e n ta g e o fE .E .F . in th is o p in io n , w e a g r e e th a t S a n c h e z is s o le ly en t i t l ed t o a r em an d of t hi s ca us e f or a hea r i ng on t he At t or ne y G en er al ’ s O f f i ce ’ s pe t i t i on
. Fu r t he r m or e, we a g re e th a t a p p e l l a te c o s ts s h a l l n o t b e a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l ’ s O ff i c e
. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN
. § 2 31

. 00 1 (V ern on 20 08 ) ( rec og ni z i ng t he A t t orn ey G en era l ’ s O ffi c e as t he stat e’ s “T i t l e I V -D ag en c y ”) , §§ 2 31. 002( a)(3) (V ern on Supp

. 200 9) ( em power i ng t he At t or ney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce t o i ni t i at e l egal act i ons per t ai ni ng t o t he p ar ent
- chi l d r el at i onshi p) , 231

. 101( a) ( 2) , ( 3) ( pr ov i di ng t hat t he At t or ney G e n e r al ’ s O f f i ce m ay pr ov i de se r v i ces t o de t er m i ne p at er ni t y and est abl i sh chi l d sup por t and m edi cal supp ort ) , 231

. 202 ( l i st i ng v ar i ous f ees t hat t he At t or ney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce i s r esponsi bl e f or pay i ng; t he l i st i s si l ent wi t h r espect t o t he cost s of app el l at e r ev i ew) , § 231. 204 ( Ver non 2008) ( pr ov i di ng t hat t he At t or ney G ener al ’ s O f f i ce m ay not be c ha rge d fo r “ a fi l i ng fee or ot he r co s t s pa y ab l e t o a cl erk of an ap pe l l ate c ou rt ”)

. 4 of the r ecord. See Nor m an C om m c’

ns v. Tex. Ea stm an C o. , 9 5 5 S

. W

. 2 d 2 6 9 , 2 7 0 (T e x. 199 7) (per curiam) (stating tha t, the face o f the record, fo r purp oses of restricted ap pea ls,
cons is ts of all the papers o n fil e i n the appeal ). Ther efore, w e c oncl ude that Sanchezhas sat is fied eac h el ement for obta ini ng r eli ef thr oug h thi s rest ri cte d appea l. III
. T H E S ERVI C E D E FE CT By hi s s ole i ss ue on appeal , Sa nchezarg ues that th e t rial c our t’ s M ay 26, 2009 ju d gm e n t s h o u ld be vaca te d an d t h e c a s e sh o u ld be rem a n d e d fo r f u rt h e r pr o ce e d in gs beca use th e return of

citation w as no t on f ile ten d a ys p ri o r t o the grant of the de fault jud g ment, as re q uired by Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 107. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 107. The Atto rney General’s Of

f ice agrees. 3 A
. A pp licab le L aw Ci tati on may

be s er v ed by any sh er iff or c onsta b le o r o ther person author iz ed by law , or byany person of at l east eightee n y ears of age aut horized by law or by w ritten cou rt
or der

. Id. at R. 103. The retur n of ser v ic e mustbe e ndorsed by the off ic er

or auth or iz ed person ex ecut in g t h e c itati on. Id. at R. 107 . If the retu rn is by

an au tho riz ed p erson , it must be v er ified

. Id. R ule 107 als o r eq uires that “[ n]o default jud g ment s hal l be g ra nted in any ca use unti l the c it ati on
. . . w it h proof of ser v ic e .
. . sh all hav e been on fil e w it h the clerk of the cou rt ten da y s, excl usive of the da y of f iling and the da y

of judgmen t.” Id.5

“S tr ic t c ompli ance w it h the r ule s for se rv ic e of ci tati on [mus t] aff ir mati v ely appear on the re cord in or der for a default jud g ment to w it hst and di re ct attac k.” Prim ate Constr., In c. v. Si lver, 884 S.W .2d 1 51, 1 52 ( Tex . 199 4)

. Fai lure to compl y w it h the r ule s g ov er nin g
ser v ic e of ci tati on c onst it utes er ro r on th e face of the record. Id. at 15 3 (“Proper servi ce not b ein g aff ir mati v ely

sh ow n, t her e i s e rror

on t he face o f the r ecord, an d t h e c o u rtof appeal s e rred i n hol din g othe rw is e.” ); see Ins . C o. of Sta te of Pa., v . Lejune , 297 S.W .3d 254, 256 ( Tex . 200 9) (p er cur iam)

. “There ar e no pr esumpt ion s i n fav or of v ali d i ss uance , ser v ic e, an d r etur n of ci tati on i n the face of a w ri t of er ro r attac k o n a d efault jud g ment.” Si lv er , 884 S.W .2d a t 152 ; see Hub ic ki v. F est ina , 226 S.W .3d 405, 407 (Tex . 200 7) ( per
cur iam) ; see a lso Maib v. Maib , No. 13- 08- 00413- CV , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4 135, at * 4 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Ch ris ti J u ne 11, 2009, no p et.) ( mem. op.) ( ci ti ng Wachovi a Bank of Del., Nat ’

l Ass ’ n v . G il li am , 215 S.W .3d 848, 850 (Tex

. 2007) (p er cur iam) ). R ather , w hen a de fault jud gmen t is entere d, w e w ill “rig idly enf orce the rules gov erning serv ice,” beca use “t he only ground suppor

ti ng the jud g ment is thatthe defendant has fail ed to re spond to the a cti on i n c o nformit y w it h the appl ic abl e procedu re for d oin g so. If the defendant c an th en s how thatthe person commenc ing the act ion w as g ui l ty of c om pa r ab l e no nc on for mi ty w i th proc ed ure r ul es , un der a pr inc ipl e of eq ual it y

the der eli cti ons offseteac h oth er
. . . .” Fes ti na , 2 2 6 S. W .3 d at 40 8 (quo ti n g W il son v. Dun n , 800 S .W .2d 8 33, 8 37 (Te x . 199 0)). “Moreover, fa ilure to af

f irmatively

show strict comp liance wi th th e Rules of Civ il Procedu re
re nders the attempt ed ser v ic e of proces s inv ali d and of no eff ect .” Uvalde Coun ty Club v. Ma rt in Lin en Supply

C o. , 690 S.W .2d 884 , 885 (Tex. 1985 ). B. Discus sion Here, t he rec or d contai ns a cita ti on th at w as is sued on M ar ch 10, 2 009. The c it ati on sta tes thatse rv ic e w as re tur ned on Ma y 26, 2009; h o wever, the at tac hed pag e to the ci tati on not es that Sanc hezw as ser v ed on Ma rc h 30, 2009, and the n otati on w as si g ned6

by a H ar ri s C ounty

C onst abl e from P re ci nct#4. In any ev ent, the c it ati on w as file- sta mped by the Calhou n Coun ty District C lerk on Jun e 2 6 , 200 9, even tho ugh the hea ring on th is
ma tter tran spired on May 26, 200 9. As not ed above, rule 107 of the rules of civ il procedu re
re q uires that the ci tati on be ex ecut ed and endorsed by the ser v ing ag ent a uthor iz ed by l aw and be on file w it h the Cal houn Cou nty Di str ic t Cl er k for ten d ay s “ ex cl usi v e of the day of f iling and t he day o f

ju dgme nt.” See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 107. M or eov er , r ule 107 dic tates that no defaul t j udg ment s hal l be entered if the ci tati on has not been on file w it h the c ler k o f the
cour t for ten d ay s. See i

d. Bec ause the ci tati on in this case w as file- sta mped on June 26, 2 0 0 9 , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , w a s n o to n f il e wit h t h e Ca lh o u n Co u n t y Di s t ri c tCl e rkfo r t e n d a ys prece ding the May 26, 200 9 de fault jud gmen t, w e con clude that the At torn ey Gen eral’s Off ic e di d notst ri ctl y

co mply w it h rul e 107 of the r ule s o f civ il procedu re , and the failu re to do s o c onst it utes er ro r on th e face of th e record; t hus, the tr ial co urt er re d i n g ra nti ng d e fa u lt ju d gm e n ta ga in s tS a n c h e z. Se e id. ; Lejune , 2 9 7 S .W .3 d at 256; Fes ti na , 226 S.W .3d a t 407 -0 8; Si

lv er , 884 S.W .2d at 152- 53; see a lso Maib , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 4135, at * 4. Acc or din g ly , w e s ust ain Sanc hez ’s so le is sue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Base d on the for eg oin g , w e r ev erse the t ria l co u rt ’s M ay 26, 2009 j udg ment and
re mand for pr oceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s o pin ion

. ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Del iv er ed and filed the 29th day of Apr il , 201 0.