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

NO. 03-04-00309- CV

Scott C. Haider and Olivia L . Haider, Appellan ts

v.
R.R.G . Masonry, Inc., Appellee

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF COM AL COUNTY , 207TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. C2002- 1100 B , HO NORAB LE GARY L. STEEL, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Scott C. Haider and O livia L . Haider appe al from the no- answe r def ault judgme nt
awa rding $12,237.50 to R.R.G. Masonry , I nc. on its claims that it was not paid for supplies pr ovided and wor k p er formed to improve the Haide rs’ re al estate . I n this restricted a ppeal, the H aider s complain that they wer e not properly serve d with citation. They also complain that the district cour t
err ed by rende ring judgme nt on the unliquidated d am age awa rd without holding a

n evidentiar

y he ari ng . We wi ll r e ve rs e the jud g me nt a nd re mand the c a us e fo r f ur the r p ro c e e din g s.
BACK GR OUND R.R.G. Masonry furnished supplies a nd work as a mecha

nic and labore r to a g ener al contra ctor, Da

vid Ba rr Bu i l d er s , i n order

to improve the Ha iders’ r eal e state. When David B arrAl tho ug h R. R.G . M a so nr y ’s or ig ina l pe tit ion

name d a s d e fe ndant s David B arr bo th 1 individually

and under the assumed name David Ba rr B uilder, B arr

did not appeal, a

nd will therefor e be e xclu de d f

ro m any fu rt he r a na ly sis
. The Ha iders’ a ddress at the time of servic e is hotly contested. 2 2 Builder s failed to pay

for the w ork and supplies, R.R.G. Masonry sued David Ba

rr, Da vid Ba rr B uil de rs , and the Ha ide rs to re c ov e r pa y me nt f or the wo rk and to f or e c los e its me c ha

nic s li e n a g a ins t the Haide r prope rty
. R.R.G. Masonry also claimed retainag e trust fund l iability , funds trappe d by 1
no tic e , tr us t f un d li a bil ity , b re a c h o f c on tr a c t, q ua ntum me ru it, a tto rn e y ’s fe e s, and int e re st. On De c e mbe r 17 , 20 02 , the tr ia l c ourt a uth or ize d a no n- pe a c e of fi c e r and pr iv ate proce ss se rver , Wil liam A
. Vorhe ier, to se rve proce ss upon all defe ndants involved in the case . The
re c or d sho ws that, dur ing De c e mbe r 17t h an d 1 8th , V or

he ie r m a de thr e e un su c c e ssf ul a tte mpt s to
serve both Scott C. Haider a nd Olivia L . Haider

at what R.R.G. Masonry

alleg ed to be the la st known addre ss o f t h e Ha iders. Be cause the attempts to serve the Haide rs wer e unsucc essful, R.R.G. 2 Masonry filed a motion for a lternative se rvice and a su p p o rt i ng aff idavit of attempted pe rsonal service upon Scott C. Haider in J anuar y of 2003, which is require d by the rules of civil proce dure. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 106(b). The re cord shows no simil ar supporting aff idavit reg ardingservice upon Olivia L . Haider
.

The trial court g rante d the motion for alter native ser vice upon both Scott C. Haider and Olivia L . Haider

and author ized the deliv er y o f ci t at i ons and petitions to any one over six teen y e ars of a g e wh o a

ns we re d th e do or

a t th e la st k

no wn ho me a dd

re ss o f t he Ha ide rs , a s st a te d in3

R.R.G. Masonry ’s orig inal petit i o n . I n addition, the trial court state d that, if no one a nswere d the doo r , s u b s ti tute d s e r v ic e c o u ld

b e a c c o mp li s h e d

b y p o s ti n g th e c it a ti o n s an d p e ti ti o n s a t t

h e f r ont door of the r esidenc e. The order spec i fi es t hat “pr oof of se rvice shall be made by the per son executing the return, stating whe n the citation was se rved, on whom it wa s serve d, and whe re it wa s
serve d.” The order

does not contain a

ny specific instructions reg arding verific ation of the re turn of service
. Vorhe ier a g ain attempted to s er v e both of the Haiders a t their assumed last known addre ss on J anuar

y 3, 2003. Howeve r, the returns of service of proc ess for both Scott C. Haider and Olivia L . Haider

do not state the manne r in which the c itation was serve d. I n addition, the rec ord does not c ontain any

evidenc e showingthat the re turns of citation for the Haide rs wer e ver ified by acknow ledg ment befor e a nota ry public. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 1 0 7 (requiring return of citation be veri fie d) ; Ba uti

sta v . B au tis ta , 9 S. W. 3 d 2 5 0 , 2 5 1 ( T e x. Ap p . — Sa n A n to n io 1 9 9 9 , no pet.) (spec ifying that “ver ified” in rule 107 means a cknowledg ed bef ore nota ry public). The Ha iders did not file an answer and did not participate in the trial. The tr ial court rende re d final judg ment in favor of R.R.G. Masonry

in Dece mber 2003, findingScott C. Haider, Olivia L . Haider , David B arr , and Da vid Ba rr B uilders jointly and sever ally liable for damag es. The Haider s appea l the judgme nt of the trial cour t.
DI SCU SSIO N A par ty who does not par

ticipate in the trial and doe s not file a timely post-judgme nt motion may file a restric ted appe al to contest the judg ment under c erta in circumstanc es. See T e x.4

R. A pp. P. 30 (allowing for restric ted appea l to court of appe als in civil cases) . To obtain a re versa l of a judg ment by

restric ted appe al, a pa

rty must satisfy four elements: (1) a notice of r estricted a ppeal must be filed within six months after the judgme nt is signed; (2) by a party to the lawsuit; (3) who did no t pa

rt i c i p a t e i nt h e h e ar i n g t h a tr e s u l t e d i nt h e j u d g m e n tan d

d i d n o tf i l e an y t i m e l y p os tjudgme nt motions ; and (4) e rror must be appar ent on the face of the re cord. See id. ; Qu ae sto r I nv s.
v. Sta t e o f C hiapas , 997 S.W .2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1999). The f irst three r equire ments are satisfied be c a us e the no tic e of

a pp e a l wa s file d on May 5, 20 04 , whi c h wa s with in six mon ths fr om t he date the judg ment was signed, the Haider s wer e party to the lawsuit, and they

did not participate in the tr ia l no r f ile any tim e ly po st- jud g me nt m oti on s. The Haiders assert t hat t wo errors are appare nt on the face of the re cord. F irst, the Haider s complain that the return of service did not strictly comply with the rules of proce dure or the order authorizing subst i t u t ed s er v ice. Sec ond, the Haide rs complain that the tria l court er red by fa i l i n g t o co n d

u ct an ev i d en t i ary

h ea ri n g o nt h e i s s u e o f u n l i qu i d at edd am age s af t er re n d er i n g a defa ult judgment.

I n a restricted appeal, the rec ord m ust aff irmatively show strict compliance with the rules of c ivil procedure reg ardingthe issuance of ser vice. Ba uti

sta , 9 S.W .3d at 251. No presumptions in f

avor of valid issuance, service , and re turn of citation ar e made in the fac e of a direc t attack on a def

ault judgme nt. W

ilson v. Dunn , 800 S.W .2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990). I f prope r ser vice of proc ess is not aff

irmatively

shown, then there is error on the fa ce of

the re cord. Pr im ateCon str
. Inc. v . Silver , 884 S.W .2d 151, 153 (Tex. 1994).5 Whe n stand ard se rv ic e of c itatio n is un su c c e ssf ul, the ru le s o f c ivi l pr oc e dure pe rm it
su bs tit ute d s e rv ic e by

pe rs on s o the r t

ha n s he ri ff s o r c on sta

ble s, so lo ng a s th e re tur

n o f s e rv ic e is verifie d. Rule 106(b) outlines the re quirements for substitut ed ser

vice: Upon motion supported by aff idavit stating the loc ation of the de fenda nt’s usual place of business or usual plac e of a bode or other place wher e the de fenda nt can probably be found an d s tating spe cifica lly the fa cts showing that service has bee n attempted under

either ( a)( 1) or (a) (2) at the l ocation named in such affidavit but has not been suc cessf

ul, the court may

authorize servic e (1) by leavinga true copy of t he citation with a copy of the pe tition attached, with any o n e o ver sixteen y ear s of ag e at the loc ation specifie d in such aff idavit, or (2) in any

other manne r that the af fi d av it or other evide nce be fore the cour t sh ow s w ill be re a so na

bly e ff e c tiv e to g ive the de fe nd ant n oti c e of the su it.
Tex. R. C iv. P. 106(b).

Any person a uthorized by

law or written order

of th e court who is not less than
e ig hte e n y e ars of

a g e may ser ve cit a tio n. Te x. R. C iv. P. 1 03 c mt. (“ [C]our ts a re pe rm itt e d to
au th o r iz e p e r s o n s o th e r th an Sh e r if f s o r Co n s ta

b le s to s e r

v e Ci tati o n ” )
. Ru le 1 07 require s
ve ri fi c a tio n o f t

he re tur n o f c itatio n b y

the se a uth or ize d p e rs on s:
The re turn of the officer or authoriz ed person executing the citation shall be endor sed on or attac hed to the same; it shall state when the c itation was serve d and the manne r of ser vice a nd be sig ned by

the offic er of

ficially or by the authorized per son. The return of citation by

an author ized person shall be ve rified.
Tex. R. C iv. P. 107.6 Ver ification of a

n instrument require s acknow ledg ment before a n o t ary public. Ba uti sta , 9 S.W .3d at 251; se e als o Mc Graw- Hi ll, In c . v . F

utr e ll , 823 S.W .2d 414, 416 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied) (def ining “ verifie d,” as written in rule 107, as meaning acknow ledg ed bef

ore nota ry public). The r eturn of service of process under rule 107 is not a trivial or formulaic document; i t is prima fac ie evidenc e of the fac ts recited the rein. Pr im ateCon str
. , 884 S.W .2d at 152. Where c itation is ex ecute d by an alter native method as a

uthorized by

rule 106(b) , proof of service in acc ordanc e with rule 107 is re quired, unless the court specifies a differ ent manner of proving service. Ba uti

sta , 9 S.W. 3d a t 25 1; Pao v. Bray s Village E. Homeowners Ass’n, I nc. , 905 S.W .2d 35, 38 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1995, no writ).

The ser vice of citation on the Haide rs did not satisfy these standards. The trial c ourt
a uth or ize d V or

he ie r t o s e rv e the Ha ide rs thr ou g h the a lte rn a tiv e or su bs tit ute me tho d, a c c or din g to rule 106(b) . Be cause the orde r for alternative service did not include any specific instructions reg ardingverific ation, the proof of service must be in acc ordanc e with rule 107. Rule 107 r equire s that V or he ie r, a s a no n- pe a c e of

fi c e r a uth or ize d by the c ourt to se rv e pr oc e ss u po n a ll d e fe nd ants , provide ve rification of all returns of service of proc ess upon all def endants, includi ng acknow ledg ment befor e a nota ry public. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 107, B a u t i sta , 9 S .W.3d at 251. Vorhe ier filed an aff

idavit of attempted persona l se rvice on Scott C. Haider , bu t i t s h o ws fa iled attempts at servic e, not completed se rvice . The recor d contains no such ver ification of the r eturns of ser vice of proce ss for either

Scott C. Haider or O livia L . Haider
. Se rv ic e of pr oc e ss w a s d e fe c tiv e a s to bo th H a ide rs fo r t wo a dd iti on a l r e a so ns . F ir st,
su bs tit ute d s e rv ic e a

pp e ars to b e de fe c tiv e a s to Oliv ia L . Ha ide r be c a us e R.R .G . Mas onry fa ile d to7

attach an aff

idavit c oncer

ning Mrs. Haider

to its m otion for alter

native ser vice. See Te x. R. Civ. P. 10 6( b) ; W ilson , 80 0 S. W.2 d at 836. Se c on d, the re tur n o f s e rv ic e on

Sc ott C. H a ide r d oe s n ot s tr ic tly comply with the rules of c ivil procedure as it fails to state whe n the citation was se rved a nd the
manner of service
. See Tex. R. C iv. P. 107; Seib v. Be kke r , 964 S.W .2d 25, 28 (Tex. App.—Tyler, 19 97 , n o w ri t) ; see also Dolly v . Aethos Communs. Sys., Inc

. , 1 0 S.W.3d 3 8 4 , 3 8 9 ( T e x. A p p . — D a l l a s 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t
. ) ( f i n d i n g t h a t v e r i f

i c a t i o no nr e tu r

no f s e r v i c e m u s tv e r i f

yfac ts relating to act of se rvice ).

The a ppellants u rge that these three defe cts constitute minor flaws that do not invalidate the se rvice of proc ess upon both Haider s. But the law require s that the rec ord
a ff ir mativ e ly sh owstr ic t c omp lia

nc e wi th t he se rv ic e re qu ir e me nts be fo re a de fa ult jud g me nt w ill be uph el d o n ap p eal. Ba uti sta , 9 S. W.3 d at 25 1. Th e un ve ri fi e d r e tur ns of se rv ic e fa il t o s tr ic tly comply with the applicable require ments of the rule s of civil proce dure. Id. ; see also Tex. R. C iv. P. 106(b), 107. Since the r ecor d does not aff irmatively

show proper

service of proc ess, there is error on the fa ce of

the re cord. Primate Constr., Inc. , 884 S.W .2d at 153. B eca use the Ha iders have satisfied all the re quirements nec essar y to obtain a re versa l of a judgment i n a re stricted appe al, we here by reve rse the de fault judg ment g iven by the trial cour

t and re mand. Be cause the def

icient servic e of c itation requires that we re verse the judgm en t and
rema nd the ca use for further proce eding s, we need not addre ss the Haiders’ c omplaint that the court failed to hold an e videntiary hear ing on the unliquidated damag es.8 CO NC LU SION We reve rse the judg ment of the t ri al court a nd rema nd the ca

use for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

W. Kenneth L aw, Chief Justice Be fore Chief J ustice L aw, Justi ces B . A. Smith and Pury ear Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Jul y

7, 2005