### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 9 -00 138 -CV

P ag e l & Sons , I nc . d/ b/a P ag e l & Sons , A ppe lla nt
v. Ge m s One Corporation , Appellee

F ROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY HO NORAB LE JO N N. WISSER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellee Gems One Corporation filed suit on a s w o r n a c c o u nt a g a inst appellant Pag el & Sons, Inc. d/b/a Pag el & Sons. Althoug h a docume nt sty led “De fenda nt’s Orig inal Answer ” wa s on file, the trial c ourt rende red a no-answe r default judgme nt in favor of Gems One. Pag el & Sons bring s this restricted a

ppeal, a rgu ing that Gems One f

ailed to send notice of the trial se tting and,
c on se qu e ntl y , th e tr ia l c ourt e rr e d in re nd e ri nga

de fa ult jud g me nt a g a ins t it. We w ill re ve rs e and re mand.
F ACTUAL AND P ROCEDURAL BACK GR OUND

Pa g e l & Son s and

Ge ms On e enter e d into a c on tr a c t un de r whic h G e ms O ne so ld ite ms a n d p r o v id e d s e r

v ic e s to Pa g e l & So n s . A f e e d is p u te ar o s e an d , a f

te r f a il in g to r e s o lve the alleg ed debt, Ge ms One filed suit on Novembe r 12, 2008. That same day , Ronald E. Pag el, Pag el & Son s’ pr inc ipa l and

re g ist e re d a g e nt, wa s se rv e d w ithc itatio n in the su it.2 Pag el, who is not

a n a tt o r n e y , filed a doc ument sty led “De fenda nt’s Orig inal Answer ” on Dec ember

2, 2008, which wa s within the tim e permitted for Pag el & Sons to file an answe r. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 99. This pl eadingst at ed t h at “the defe ndant listed in the above e ntitled and numbere d cause ” g ener ally denied the alleg ations contained in the pl aintiff’s origina l petition and listed Page l & Sons’ addr ess and c ontact information. The document wa s signe d by Ronald E. Pag el but di d n ot e xpre ssl y

state that he wa s si g nin g on be ha lf of Pa g e l & Son s. On De c e mbe r 3 0, 20 08 , th e tr ia l c ourt re nd e re d a de fa ult jud g me nt i n f

avo r o f G e ms On e . T he jud g me nt re c ite d that “D e fe nd ant tho ug h duly c ite d to a pp e ar a nd ans we r h e re in h a s w ho lly failed to a

ppear and answ er he rein,” and g ra n t ed judg ment for Ge ms One in the principa l sum of $54,672.81. Pag el & Sons did not file any postjudgment motions or reque sts for findings of fact a nd conclusions of law . On Fe bruar y 10, 2009, Pag el & Sons timely filed notice of r estricted a ppeal. See Tex. R. App. P . 26.1(c) , 30. I n its sole issue, Page l & Sons asser ts that the tr i al co u rt err ed by rende ring the no-a

nswer de fault judg ment when Pag el & Sons had, in fact, a lrea dy filed an a nswer.
DI SCU SSIO N A re stricted appe al is available for the limited purpose of p r o v id in g a n o n -par ticipating party an opportu n i t y to corre ct an e rrone ous judgme nt. TAC Ams., Inc. v. Boothe , 94 S.W .3d 315, 31 8 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 02 , no pe t.)
. To pr e va il on re str ic te d a pp e a l, P a g e l & Son s mu st e sta bli sh that: ( 1) it f

ile d n oti c e of

the re str ic te d a

pp e a l w ith in s ix mon ths a ft e r t he jud g me nt w a s si g ne d; ( 2) it
was a party to the underlying la

wsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hea ring that resulted in the j u d gm en tco mp l ai n edo f a n d d i d n o tt i m el y

fi l e a n y p o s t j u d gm en tm o t i o n s o r r equ es t s fo r f i n d i n gs of fa ct and c onclusions of law; and (4) err or is a ppare nt on the fac e of the re cord. See Tex. R. App.3

P. 3 0; Go ld v . G old, 145 S.W .3d 212, 213 (Tex. 2004); Alexande r v. Lynda’s Boutique , 134 S.W .3d 84 5 , 8 4 8 ( T e x. 2 0 0 4 )
. T h e f a c e o f t h e r e c o r d

i na r e s tr i c t e d

a p p e a l c o n s i s t s o f

th e p a p e r s o nf ile with the court whe n it render ed judg ment. Ge ne ra l E le c . Co . v . Falc on Ri dge Ap ts. , J oin t V e ntu re , 811 S.W .2d 942, 943-44 (Te x . 1991).

The pa rties join issue over the f

inal element, whe ther e rror exis ts o n t h e fa ce of the
rec ord that would re quire re versa l of the def ault judgme nt. This disput e ce nters on whe ther the document filed by

Ronald E. Pag el ca

n be construe d as an a

nswer on be half of Pag el & Sons, thereby entitling Pag el & Sons to notice of the final he aringon Gems One ’s petition. See G uadalupe Econ. Servs. Corp. v. De hoyos , 183 S.W .3d 712, 716 (Tex. A pp.—Austin 2005, no pet.) (“ The trial c ourt
err s if it procee ds to trial when a n an s wer is on file without giving notice of the trial setting.” ); see also Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc. , 48 5 U. S. 80 , 86 -8 7 (1 98 8) (a ft e r m akin g a pp e ara nc e in
c a se , d e fend ant is e nti tle d to no tic e of tr ia l se tti nga s matte r o f d ue pr oc e ss u

nd e r F ourt e e nth Amendment). Co n c e d in g th a t i ts an s w e r w a s d e f ic ie n t a n d n o t i nth e p r o p e r

f o r m, Pa g e l & So ns
no ne the le ss u

rg e s th a t th e jud g me nt m

us t be re ve rs e d b e c a

us e the ple a din g on

fi le wa s su ff

ic ie nt t o pr e ve nt r e nd iti on

of a no -a ns we r d e fa

ult jud g me nt. Ge ms On e cou nt ers that th e ans we r w a s so d e f i c i e n ta s t o r e n d e r

i ta nu l l i t y. I t is wel l est a

bli sh e d th a t on ly

a lic e ns e d atto rn e y

c an a pp e ar a nd re pr e se nt a corpor ation in liti g ation. See Kunstopl ast of Am. v. Formosa Plastics Corp., USA , 937 S.W .2d 455, 456 (Tex. 1996). “How ever , when c onsidering answe rs fil ed by non-attorne y corpor ate of fice rs, the courts of a

ppeals have ‘g one to g reat leng ths to ex cu s e defe cts in answer s to prevent the e ntry of defa ult judgments ag ainst parties who ha ve made some attempt, albeit def icient, unconve ntional, or4

flat out forbidde n under the Rules of Civil Procedur e, to a cknowledg e that they have r ece ived notice of the law suit pending a g ainst them.’” Dehoy os , 1 8 3 S
. W
. 3 d at 7 1 6 n . 4 (q u o t i n g Hock v. Salaices , 982 S.W .2d 591, 593 (Tex. App.—San Antoni o 1998, no pet.)). Indeed, the Texas Supreme Court has i n d ic a te d

th a t a d e f e n d an t wh o ti me ly

f il e s a p r o s e an s w e r

b y a s ign e d le tt e r th a t i d e n ti fies the par ties, the ca se, and the defe ndant ’s cu rr en t addre ss has sufficie ntly appea red by answe r and is entitled to notice of a ny trial setting. Smith v. Lippmann , 826 S.W .2d 137, 138 (Tex. 1992); see also Tex. R. C iv. P. 245.

Applying the supreme c ourt’s dec ision in Smith v. Lippman , this Court has held that the fi lin g of an ans we r by a no n- a tto rn e y on be ha lf of a c or po ra tio n, wh ile de fe c tiv e , is su ff ic ie nt t o preve nt the entry of a defa ult judg ment. See Dehoy os , 1 83 S.W. 3d a t 71 5; se e als o KSN

G A rc hite c ts, Inc. v . Beasley , 109 S.W .3d 894, 899 n.5 (Tex
. Ap p . — Da l l as 2003, no pet.) (“An a nswer f iled on be ha lf of a c or

po ratio n by a no n- a tto rn e y is suf fi c ie nt t o p re ve nt a

de fa ult jud g me nt. ” ); Custom-Crete, In c . v . K-Ba r S

e rv s. , 82 S.W .3d 655, 658 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2002, no pet.) (a nswer f iled by corpor ation’s vice- president whic h identified trial court cause number but did not state that he wa s ag ent for corporation held t o be suff icient answe r). We apply this holdi ng ag ain in the pre sent ca se. “Te x as l aw d o es n o tfa v o r d i s m i s s al o np l ea d i n gs , d ea th -p en al ty s an ct i o n s , o r h ea ri n gs wi thout notice. I t do e s f avo r lib e ra l ame ndme nt of ple a din g s and a ff or din g lit ig ants the op po rt un ity to c ur e de fe c ts in pleading s whene ver possible.” KSN G A rc hite c ts , 109 S.W .3d at 899. I n the ca se at ba

r, as in the case s cited above, P ag el & Sons’ answe r wa s timely filed, identified th e c o r

r e c t c a u s e number

and par ties, responde d to Gems One’ s alleg ations, and listed Pag el & S on s’ c or

po rate a dd

re ss. I t w a s r e c e ive d a

nd fi le d b y the c ounty

c le rk . In v ie w o f t

he se5

circ umstances, the me re f act that Pag el failed to e x pressly desig nate that he wa s signing the pleading
on behalf of Pag el & Sons doe s not r ender it incur ably defe ctive. Cf. Custom-Crete, Inc. , 82 S.W .3d at 658. We hold that, despite i ts defic iencies, the pleading signe d and filed by Pag el constituted an
an s w e r b y P a g e l & S o n s an d

w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o f o r e s t a l l a n o - an s w e r

d e f a u l tj u d g m e n t
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
we su sta in P a g e l & Son s’ iss ue on re str ic te d a

pp e a l.
CO NC LU SION We reve rse the de fault judg ment and re mand the ca use t o t he trial c ourt for fu rt he r p ro c e e din g s.

_______________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ J . Woodfin J ones, Chief Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Oc tober 15, 2009