NO. 07-06 -011 2-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL B MA Y3, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ In th e Int erest of

J.M.I., A Child

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 24 2 DIS T RI CTCOU RT OF HA L E CO UNT Y; ND NO. B343 77-0 510 ; HON. ED SELF, PRES IDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. The parents of

the minor

chil d J.M .I. appeal an order deny ing thei r re q uestfor a new tr ial after a de fault j udg ment had been entere d a gai n st them. Aurora Perezand Ismael Itur ra lde co ntend, v ia four i ss ues, that1) the tr ial co urt er re d by findi ng thatboth par

ti es had bee n s er

v ed th ro ug h s ubst it uted ser v ic e on Aurora’s m other , 2)the par ti es had present ed s uff ic ien t ev ide nce to s ati sfythe Craddo ck tes t and 3) the besti nterest s o f the chi ld w ar ra nt a new

tr ial

. W e rev erse and remand.

Back ground A u ro ra a n d I s m a e l a re t h e b io lo gi c a l p a re n t s o f J

. M. I

. A u ro ra ’s b ro t h e r, R a y P e re z, and hi s w ife C hr is ti na fil ed s uitto g ain cu sto dy of the c hil d on the basi s t hat h e had been
re si din g w it h the m for t he precedi ng si x m onths

. The sui t was filed on O cto ber 27, 2005,2

in Hale Coun ty, T exas. On Octob er 3 1, 200 5, Aurora a nd Ism ael f iled a “Petitio n for W rit of Habeas C or pus” i n the 255 Ju dic ial D is tr ict of D all as Cou nty

. A hear ing w as hel d on th the hab eas p etition , and the trial court issue d an order directing Ray and Ch ristina to retu rn J.M.I. to his pare nts. T hey co mp lied w ith the d irectiv e. Du ring this time , howev er, the Hale Co u n ty su itrem a in e d pe n d in g. Initial ef forts by Ray to pe rfect pe rsona l serv ice on eith er Auror a o r Ismae l w ere unsuc ces sful. So , on Nov ember 21, 2005, he mov ed for an order auth or iz ing su bst it uted
serv ic e u p o n A u ro ra ’ s m o t h e r , F ra n c e s P e re z . T h e re q u e s tw a s p u r p o rt e d l y j u s t i fi ed becau se both Aurora and Ismael all eg edl y w ere av oid ing ser v ic e. The moti on was g ra nted. Thereafter , F ra nces w as ser v ed w it h cit ati on on Nov ember 22, 2005. Si x

days l ater , t he H a l e C o u n ty

D i s t r i ctC o u rtc o n d u ct e d a h e a r i n g u p o n a p e n d i n g m o t i o n fo r t e mp o ra r

y re l i e f. Nei ther Aurora nor Ismael appeared at the proceed ing and, once it w as compl eted, the tr ial
cour t awarded R ay

and Chr is ti na te mpora ry manag ing co nser

v atorshi p of J. M. I. Late r that day , R ay trav ele d to Da ll as and obt ain ed a w ri t of att achmentfor J .M .I. bas ed upon the Hal e C ounty

order

. A D all as cons tabl e the n serv ed Aurora w it h the w ri t, sei z ed th e c hil d,
a n d re le a s e d J. M. I

. t o Ra y. On D ecember

20, 2005, the Hal e County Dis tr ict C our

t c onv ened a final hear ing on the p eti ti on of R ay

and Chr is ti na. Ag ain , neith er Aurora nor Ismael appeared; nor had they filed an a nswer

to the p ro ceedi ng . Ei g h t d a ys l ater , an order noti ng thei r default w as si g ned. Ital so appoi nted Ray and Chr is ti na permanentm anag ing conser v ators of J.M .I. Thereafter , t he c hil d’s parents mov ed to se t as ide the order and for a new

tr ial

. A hear ing
w as hel d on the moti on in Febr uar y of 20 06, after w hic h the moti on w as deni e d . B o th parents ti mely

appeal ed.R ul e 106( a) of t he R ul es of C i v i l Pr ocedur e speci f i cal l y st at es t hat “ [ u] nl ess t he ci t at i on o ran or der 1 oft he co ur t ot herwi se di r ect s, t he ci t at i on sh al l b e s erv ed b yanyper son a ut hor i z ed b y R ul e 10 3 by( 1) del i v er i ng t o t he def endan t , i n per son, a t r ue co pyof t he ci t at i on wi t h t he d at e of del i v er y end or sed t her eon w i t h a c o p y o fth e p e tit io n a tt a c h e d th e r e to , o r( 2 ) m a ilin g to th e d e f e n d a n t b y r e g is te r e d o rc e r tif ie d m a il, re tu rn re c e i p t re q u e s te d , a tru e c o p y o f th e c i ta ti o n w i th a c o p y o f th e p e ti ti o n a tta c h e d th e re to .” 3 Iss ues Onethrough Four Aurora and Isma el cont end t hatt he trial court abu sed its discretio n in den y ing their
mo tion for new trial. Variou s groun ds are raised purp orted ly showing this. W e w ill add ress each g ro und i n tur n. Sub stitute Service T he f irst g roun d involv es an atta ck upo n Ray’ s atte mp t at sub stitute serv ice. Aurora and I smael as ser

t t hat s uch ser

v ic e w as improper . W e ag re e. It ha s bee n f irmly

estab lished thata default jud gmen t cann ot w ithsta nd a direct atta ck (such as this on e) by a de fend antw ho sh ows tha t he was not se rve d in strict compl ian ce w it h the Tex as Rul es of Ci v il Procedu re . Wil son v. Dun n , 800 S.W .2d 8 33, 8 36 (Te x . 199 0); Furs t v. Sm it h , 176 S.W .3d 864, 868 (Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 D is t.] 2005, no st pet .). Next, sub section (b) of rule 1 06 p rov ides an alterna tiv e me ans fo r serv ice butonly
w hen personal ser

v ic e has "not b een s ucc ess ful." SeeT EX . R. C IV . P. 106 (b). T o ob tain relief und er thatrule, the plaintif f m ust mo v e for it and sup port his m otion w ith an af f idavit sta ti ng 1) the loc ati on of the defendant' s u sual pl ace of busi ness or us ual pl ace of abode
o r o t h e r place w here the de fend antcan prob ably be foun d an d 2) the specif ic fac ts showing tha t serv ice had bee n att em pte d w ithou t success un der eith er subse ction o f Rule 106( a) at the l ocat ion menti oned i n the aff ida v it

. Id. Fi nal ly , these re q uirements are not 1
me t t h ro u g h a ffi d a v i t s u tt e r i n g n o t h i n g mo re t h a n c o n c lus ion s. W il son v. Dun n , 800 S.W .2d a t 36.4

The record before us co ntai ns Ray ’s moti ons fo r substi tuted se rv ic e al ong w it h aff ida v it s p ur por

tedl y j ust ify ing sa me. Thatper tai nin g to Aurora s tated i n per ti nent par

t: T he reside nce address of AURORA ESP ERANZA PEREZ, Respon den t, is unkno w n to me. To my kn o wledg e s he i s a cti v ely av oid ing se rv ic e of proce ss in this case. She mo v ed out of her last known address in th e mid dle of the ni g ht on N ovember 1 0, 20 05 after the pr iv ate p ro ces s s er v er had attempt ed to ser

v e her that afternoo n. She abandoned one of he r other c hi l dren i n th e pa r k i ng l otw he n s he d rov e off w i th h er b oyfr i en d an d s om e of her o ther

ch il dren. To the b estof mykn ow led g e, s he i s a cti v ely bei ng inv est ig ated by

the Dal las Pol ic e D epar tment, M edi cai d F ra u d Unit , t he Dep artment of Heal th an d H uman Ser v ic es and C CS

. Her other sc hool ag ed chi ldren are sti ll enrol led in JFK El ementar y and Spenc e M idd le Scho ol, but they hav e notatt ended c las s s inc e N ov ember 9, 2005. I bel iev e tha t AU RO RA

ESP ERAN ZA PER EZ w il l re cei v e not ic e of thi s sui t if the O ri g ina l Pet ition in Su it Af

fecting Paren t-Child Relation ship an d T em pora ry Restraini n g Order an d Order Re-Set ting HEARING FOR TEMPORARY OR DE RS are del iv ered to her mother , F RA NC ES P ER EZ. That per tai nin g to Ismael st ated in per ti nent par

t: T h e re s id e n c e a d d re s s o f I S MA E L I T UR RA L DE , Re s p o n d e n t , i s u n k n o wn to m e. T o my know led ge h e i s a ctiv ely avoiding serv ice of process in this cas e. I bel iev e tha t I SM AEL I TUR RA LDE w il l re cei v e not ic e of thi s sui t if the Orig inal Pet ition in Su it Af fecting Paren t-Child Relation ship an d T em pora ry Restrainin g Order an d Or d e r Re-Se tting HEARING FOR TEMPORA RY ORDERS are de liv ered to his mo the r-in-l aw, FRANCES PEREZ. As can be se e n f ro m thes e al leg ati ons, nei ther di sc los ed facts sh ow ing the number of attempt s a t pers onal serv ic e made or the cal endar

dates on w hic h s er

v ic e w as attempt ed. Thus, nei ther

co mpli ed w it h R ule 106( b) and, t h e re fore, w ere fatal ly defecti v e. Mackie Con str . Co. v. Ca rp et S er

vices , 645 S.W .2d 594, 596 (Tex

. App.–E ast lan d 1982, no w ri t) (h old ing that a fai lure to dis cl ose the n umber of attempt s made , al ong w it h the ca len dar dates on w hic h s er

v ic e w as attempt ed, was hel d to be fatal to th e aff ida v it ); see Travis Bui lde rs, Inc. v. Gr

aves , 583 S.W .2d 8 65, 8 67 ( Tex

. App.–Ty ler 1979, no w ri t) ( hol din g that an affidav itreci ti ng t h at t he depu ty co nst abl e had used "re asona ble di li g ence" w as5

defecti v e bec ause itfail ed to incl ude the req uired fact ual statementdi sc los ing the act ual dil ig ence used to ob tai n personal se rv ic e) ; Sty lem ar k C onst ru ctio n , Inc. v. Spi

es , 612 S.W .2d 654 , 656 (Tex. App. –Hou ston [14t h Dist.] 198 1, no w rit) (holdin g tha t an af f idavit
re ci ti ng thatpersonal se rv ic e had become difficul t and impract ic al w as lac ki ng in spec ific ity detai li ng the efforts made to obtai n s er v ic e) ; Har

ri son v. Dal

las C our t R epor ti ng C ollege, Inc. , 589 S.W .2d 813 , 815 (Tex. Civ . App .–Dallas 1 979 , no wr it) ( hol d in g an af f idavit ins u ffi c i e n t b e c a u s e i t re c i t e d t h a t " s e v e ra l a tt e mp t s " a t s e r v i c e w e re ma d e w it hout dis cl osi ng the n umber

and ti mes of tho se attempt s) ; Beach, Bait & Tackle, Inc. , Stor

e No. 2 v. Holt , 693 S.W .2d 684, 68 5- 86 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1985, no w ri t) ( hol din g tha t an af

f idavit stating that "se rv ice w as imp ractical desp ite du e d il ig e n ce" w as he ld ins uff ic ien t t o s uppor

t subs ti tuted ser

v ic e)

. So, the aff ida v it s prov ide d by Ray and Chr is ti na faile d to str ictl y

comply w it h Rul e 106 or

sati sfythe prereq uis it es to obt ain ing su bst it uted
ser v ic e. Thus, the a ttemptat subs ti tuted serv ic e w as ineffecti v e. Y et, that does not end
our i nq uir y for p ersonal ser

v ic e w as lat er effect uated on Aurora and Ismael on N ov ember 29, 2 005, and D ecember 6, 2005, re specti v ely

. Person al Service Havi ng also bee n pe rsona lly serv ed, w e mu st assess whethe r a n ew trial should hav e been g ra nted for ot her reason s. Aurora and Ismael sa y it shoul d hav e. W e ag re e. As prev iou sl y

mention e d , th e tri al cour t c onv ened i ts final hear ing and tr ied the p eti ti on of R ay

and Chr is ti na on Dec ember 20, 2005. The final order ar is ing from t hat h e a r i n g a n d a wa rd in g m a n a ge ri a l c u s t o d y t o Ra y a n d Ch ri s t in a wa s si gn e d e ig h td a ys lat er , t hat i s, on D ecember 28

. Hav ing been personal ly se rv ed on No vember 29 , th thT he 2 0 da y s expi r ed o n M onday , D ecem ber19, 200 5. 2 W e do notpur por t t o ext end t hi s t o cov erf act si t uat i ons o t he r t ha n t ho se i nv ol v i ng a def endan t 3 w ho s e d ea dl i ne t o a pp ea r has y et t o e x pi re an d w ho ha s y et t o a pp ea r. 6 A u ro ra ’s a n s we r wa s d u e o n De c e m b e r 26 , o r t h e Mo n d a y fo ll o win g e xp ira t io n o f 2 0 d a ys th from se rv ic e. T EX . R. C IV . P

. 99 ( b) (s peci fyi ng thatthe defendant mus t app ear by the 2 Mo nday foll ow ing the ex pirati on of 20 d a ys from s er v ic e) ; Pr octor v. Gr een , 673 S.W .2d 390, 392 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 Di st. ] 1984, no w ri t) ( hol din g thatw hen t he l astday of the st 20-d ay period falls on a Mond ay, th e d e fe n d antmustapp ear by the followi ng Monday). In t ur n, I smael ’s appearance or ans w er date fell on Januar

y 2, 2006. As can be seen, the tr ial co urt c onducted t h e h ear ing and ex ecut ed i ts final j udg ment before Is mael w as obl ig ated to appear or

ans w er . In do ing so , i t er re d. See C onaway v. Lopez , 880 S.W .2d 448, 449 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1994, w ri t ref’d) ( st ati ng thata de fault j udg ment rendered before t he defendant’ s a nswer i s d ue mus t be re v ersed)

. So t oo di d i t err

in conv eni ng the Dec ember 20 tri al before Aurora w as req uired to th appear . Y ears a g o our Supreme Cou rt hel d that a tr ial co urt l ack ed di sc re ti on to hear and deter mine a c ase in a defendant’ s a bsenc e pr ior to the t ime the d efendant was noti fied to appear . Rog er

s v . T exas C om m er

ce Bank, 7 5 5 S

. W

. 2 d 8 3 , 8 4 (T e x. 1 9 8 8 ). Ad m it t e d ly, Roge rs co ncer ned not ific ati on of tr ial under Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedure 245. Y et, it s ra ti onal e has no l ess appl ic ati on viz the appearance date m e n tioned i n the ci tati on and
ma nda ted byTe x as Rule of Civ il P ro cedu re 99(b). Just as th e con ceptof due process prohi bit s the conv eni ng of a tr ial before the time rev eal ed to the li ti g ants , Rog er s v . T exas Com m er ce Bank, 755 S.W .2d a t 84, so too w oul d it bar a c our t from hol din g tr ial before the defe n d ant i s o bli g ated to ap pear . I n eac h i nst ance, w e musttak e c are to prov ide the 37

par ti e s th e ir d a y in court

. So, the t ri al cour t atbar had no aut hor ity

to conv ene t ri al on Dec ember

20 w hen Au ro ra w as afforded, v ia ci tati on, u nti l Dec ember 26 to appear . th th Fi nal ly , we c oncl ude that the errors w ere harmful. At the v er y leasttheydeni ed th e app ellant s the op portu nity to at tack, o n ap pea l, the substan tiv e aspe cts of the trial court’s deci si on. See T EX . R. A PP . P

. 44.1 (a) (describing w hen error i s conside red ha rmf ul). Acc ordin g ly , w e re v erse the fin al order and re mand the ca use to t he tr ial co urt for further proceed ing s.

Br ian Qui nn Chief Justice