### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00422- CV
Reliant Capital Solu tions, LL C, Appellant

v. Chiem eka Chuma- Okoraf or, Appellee

F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 250 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GN-0 9-0 0420 7, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

I n this re stricted appea l, Re liant Ca pital Solutions, L L C ( Reliant) seeks to ove rturn

a no-answe r defa

ult judgme nt in favor of Chimeka Chuma-Okora for on cause s of action arising out of debt collection prac tices used by Reliant. For the rea sons stated here in, we reve rse the judgme nt and re mand the ca

use to the trial cour

t for fur ther proc eeding s.
BACK GR OUND On Dec ember

11, 2009, Chuma-Okora for filed an orig inal petition a g ainst Reliant,

a third party debt collection service provider. Chuma-Okora for’ s suit was based on sever al cause s of action, including claims for dece ptive trade prac tices, invasion of pri v ac y , and wrong ful debt collection. Chuma-Okora for soug ht to serve Reliant throug h its reg istered ag ent fo r s er v i ce, CT Corporation Sy

tems.On Dec ember 16, 2009, the citation was issued. The citatio n wa s addre ssed to

“REL I AN T CAPI TAL SOL UTI ONS L L C BY SERVI NG I TS REGI STERED AGENT, C T CORPOR ATI ON SYSTEM.” The rec ord ref lects that the require d documents we re mailed by

cer tified mail on J anuar

y 19, 2010, to “CT Corporation Sy s.” The appellate rec ord includes a photocopy of P o s tal Service For m 3800, titled “Certifie d Mail Rece ipt,” and P ostal Service For m 3811, titled “Domestic Return Rec eipt.” The “Certifie d Mail Receipt” w as addr essed a s follows: CT Corporation Sy s. 350 North St. Paul Dallas, TX 75201

T h e re ce ipt bear s a postal service postmark of J anuar y 19, 2010, from Flore sville, Texas. T h e “Domestic Return Rece ipt” contains t he same addre ss as the “Cer tified Mail Rece ipt.” Section B of the “Domestic Return Rece ipt,” heade d “Rec eived by (Print Name) ,” contains the stamped leg end “Rec eived CT CORPORATI ON.” Sec tion A, headed “Signature : Addresse e or A g ent,” c ontains the s tamped lege nd “JAN 21 2010.” Section C, heade d “Da te of De livery ” is blank. The rece ipt contains no sig nature or handw riting othe r than the ha ndwritten addr ess. After the United States Postal Service ’s return rec eipt had been returne d to the District Clerk of Travis County and had been on file the require d period of time without an answe r having been filed by Reliant, Chuma-Okora for moved for entry of a defa ult judgme nt. The defa

ult judgme nt was g rante d J anuar y 18, 2011. Reliant did not timely file a post-judgme nt motion, reque st for findings of fac t and conclusions of law, or notice of appeal but perf ecte d this restric ted appeal on J uly 7, 2011. See Tex. R. App. P . 30.

2STANDARD OF REVIEW A party filing a restric ted appea l must demonstrate that (1) he appea led within six months afte r the judgme nt w as rende red, (2) he was a party to the suit, (3) he did not participa te in the actua l trial of the case , and (4) err or appea rs on the fac e of the reco rd

. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c) , 30; see also Alex ander v. Lydia’s Boutique , 134 S.W .3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004) (listing the elements of a restric ted appea l). The only contested issue in this restric ted appeal is the final element—whe ther there is err or on the fac e of the rec ord. The fac e of the rec ord includes all paper s
o n fi l e i n the appea l, including the cler k’s rec ord and any repor ter’s rec ord. DSC Fin. C o r p . v. Moffitt , 815 S.W .2d 551, 551 (Tex. 1991).

“F or well over a centur

y , [t he supreme] court has require d that strict compliance with the ru l es fo r service of citation aff irmatively appea

r on the rec ord in order for a defa ult judgme nt to withst an d d i re ct attack.” Insurance Co. of State of Pa. v. Legune , 297 S.W .3d 254, 255 (Tex. 2009) (per curia m) (quoting Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver , 885 S.W .2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam) (citing W

ilson v. Dunn , 800 S.W .2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990))) ; Union Pac. Corp. v. Legg , 49 S.W .3d 72, 77 (Tex. App.—Austin 2001, no pet.) (quoting Primate Constr. , 884 S.W .2d at 152). “‘In order for a defa

ult judgme nt to withstand direc t attack, strict compliance with the rules of civil p rocedure rela ting to the manner and mode of service of citation must appea r on the fac e of t h e
re co rd .’” Union Pac. Corp. , 49 S.W .3d at 77 (quoting Renaissance Park & Renaissance Park Apartments v. Davila , 27 S.W .3d 252, 255 (Tex. App.—Austin 2000, no pet.)); see W hitney v. L & L Re alty Corp. , 500 S.W .2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1973)

. This Court has no presumptions in f avor of valid

3issuance, service , and return of citation when it considers a restric ted ap p ea l

. Primate Constr. ,

884 S.W .2d at 152.
DISCUSSIO N

I n its fi rs t i s s u e, Reliant contends that the trial court err ed in enter ing a no-answe r defa ult judgme nt beca

use service o f ci t ation was fatally defe ctive due to a lack of t he addressee ’s signa ture on the return. The rec ord ref lects that service and return o f citation wer e attempted by

cer tified mail, return rec eipt reque sted. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 106 (authorizing service throug h cer tified mail). Rule 107 of t he Tex as R ules of C ivil Procedur e requires that if service is acc omplished by

cer tified mail the return “must also contain the return rec eipt with the addre ssee’ s signa ture.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 107(c) ; see Union Pac. Corp. , 49 S.W .3d at 79; 14.9 Grams of Methamphe tamine v. State , 28 S.W .3d 146, 148 (Tex. App—Texarkana 2000, no pet.); JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. T ejas Asset Holdings, L.L.C

. , No. 05-11-00962- CV, 2012 Tex. App. L E XIS 7702, at *3 (Tex. App—Dallas Sept. 10, 2012 , n o. pet.) (mem. op.); cf., e.g. , Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., Inc. , 690 S.W .2d 884, 885 (Tex. 1985) (per curia m) (no strict compliance wher e return of citation did not ref

lect author ity

of sig nator to ac cept se rvice ). We conclude the appellate rec ord in this case does not demonstrate strict compliance with the rules g overning the issuance, service , an d re t u rn of citation. This Court has previously stated that “a stamped signature may be suffice nt if shown to be authorized by proof in the rec ord.” See U nion Pac. C orp. , 49 S.W .3d at 79 (emphasis added). I n Union Pacific , CT Corporation, the

same defe ndant as in this case , used a stamp to mark the porti o n o f t h e re t urn rec eipt entitled “Signa ture: Addre ssee or Ag ent” with the leg end “C.T. Corp. Sy stems” in block letters. Id. at 76.
4This Court conclude d t h at t h e return rec eipt did not bear the requisite addre ssee signa ture and

beca use no evidenc e was p re s en t ed i n the rec ord to authorize the use of a stamp instead of a signa ture, the return was fata lly defe ctive. Id. at 79. This defe ct cre ated erro r on the fac e of the

rec ord. Id. Simi larly , in this case , the return rec eipt does not contain a signa ture at all, nor does the

rec ord contain any evidenc e to permit the use of a stamp to eff ect service

. As in Union Pacific , the lack of a sig nature on the receipt and the l ack of evidenc e in the record to authorize a st amp as an alterna tive to a sig nature rende r the ser vice on Reliant de fec tive. See id. Fur ther, “althoug h a corpor ation may act as the reg istered ag ent for another corpor ation, a corpor ation is not a person capa ble of acc epting proce ss and must be serve d throug h its ag ents.” Ree d Elsevier v. Carroll ton-Farmers Bran ch In dep . Sch. Dist

. , 180 S.W .3d 903, 905 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (citing All Commercial Floors, Inc. v. B a r t o n & Rasor , 97 S.W .3d 723, 727 (Tex. A pp.—For t Worth 2003, no pet.)). “The rec ord must show whether the person serve d was in fac t such an ag ent for the corpor ation acting as the reg istered ag ent.” Id. (citing National Med. Enters. of Tex., Inc. v. W edman , 676 S.W .2d 712, 715 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1984, no writ). I n this case , the return does not contain any signa ture. The return of citation mere ly contains the stamped na me of the defe ndant. Thus, neither the return rec eipt nor the re cord indica tes that a person with capa city to acc ept service was actua lly serve d. For these rea sons, w e find err or on the fac e of the rec ord. See U nion Pac. Corp. , 49 S.W .3d at 79. Due to this er ro r i n t h e rec ord, the defa ult judgme nt cannot stand. See Primate Constr. , 884 S.W .2d at 153 (holding that “prope r service not being aff irm at i v ely shown, there is

err or on the fac e of the rec ord, and the court of appeal s er red in holding otherwise” ). Thus, we

5sustain Re liant’s first issue. Be cause this issue is dispositi ve, we do not rea ch Reliant’s rema ining

issues. See Tex. R. App. P . 47.1.
CONCLUSION

Having conclude d that there is err or on the fac e of the rec ord as to whether the service of citation was proper ly eff ecte d, we reve rse the trial co u rt ’s j u d gment and rema nd this cause for further proce eding s.

__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose, and Goodwin Reverse d and Remande d Filed: Aug ust 14, 2013

6