C O U R T O F A P P E A LS EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEXAS ELPASO, TEXAS
RESURGENCE FI

NANCIAL , L .L .C., Ap pe lla nt,
v.
ETHEL L . CURRY, Appellee
. § § § § § § No . 0 8- 07 -0 02 91 -C V

Appea l from the County Court at L aw No. 1 of Da lla s Co unty , T e xas (TC# CC-07-00731-A)

O P I N I O N Resurg ence Financ ial, L .L .C. (“Resurg ence ”) a ppeals the dismissal of its brea ch of contra ct ac tion ag ainst Ethel L . Curry (“Ms. Curry”) f

or her alleg ed fa ilure to pay

on a cr edit car d
acc ount. Resurg ence contends the tria l court er red by dismiss ing the action for want of pr os e c uti on

and de nyingits mot ion

fo r d e fa ult jud g me nt. We a ff

ir m. On Janu ary 12 , 2 00 7, Re surg e nc e fi le d a n a c tio n a g a ins t Ms . Curr y to r e c ov e r a

mou nts due for failure to pay

on a cr edit car d acc ount. The petition stated that Citibank and Ms. Curry enter ed into an Ac count Agree ment that allowed he r to obtain ca sh advanc es and pur chase g oods and ser vices at places that honored the c redit ca rd. Ms. Curry

promised to pay

for the a ccount but f a ile d to do so and

ow e s Re surg e nc e , who no w o wn s th e a c c ount, in t he amou nt o f a t le a st $10,746.69 including inter est at 6 per cent f rom Novembe r 1, 2006 until paid per the documentation attac hed to Resurg ence ’s petition and attorne y ’s fe es as pr ovided for in the Ac c ount A g re e me nt. Re surg e nc e atta c he d th e a ff ida vit of JohnOv e r, the e nti ty ’s de signate d a g e nt, a s w e ll a s a-2-

statement of Ms. Curry ’s ac count to the petition. These doc uments showed that Ms. Curry owes the pre viously

stated amount to Resurg ence , which compr ises of the princ ipal amount of $9 ,6 26 .3 4 a

nd the a c c ru e d inte re st o f $ 1, 12 0. 35 a s o f O c tob e r 3 1, 20 06 . T he pe tit ion a lso contained a

reque st for disclosures a

nd reque sts for admission. Resurg ence serve d Ms. Curry with citation on J anuar

y 30, 2007. On Fe bruar

y 12, 2007, the trial cour

t issued a Texas Rules of Civil P roce dure Rule 165a letter statingthat if Ms. Curry has not filed an a

nswer, or if the answe r filed wa s insufficient as a matter of la

w to place Resurg ence ’s alleg ed fa cts in issue, the court e x pecte d Resurg ence to have moved f or and to have had hea rd a summar

y judgme nt or to have pr oved up a de fault judg ment prior to J une 8, 2007. The c ourt furthe r stated that Resur g ence ’s “f ailure to have done so w ill result in the dism issal of the ca se . . .” on that date. On Marc h 2, 2007, Resurg ence filed a motion for de fault judg ment. Resurg ence argued that it s c a us e of a c tio n is a

liq uid ate d c la im b a se d o n th e purc ha se of g oo ds and

se rv ic e s b y

c re dit
car d. Resurg ence reque sted judg ment on the debt Ms. Curry owes tog ether

with interest and attorney ’s fe es, which the entity supported with an attorney ’s af fidavit and a

non-military
a ff ida vit
. On J une 8, 2007, the tria l court dismissed the case based on Resur g ence ’s fa ilure to take action af ter notice of intent to dismis s for wa nt of prosec ution in accor dance with the Rule 165a letter a nd for wa nt of prosec ution. Resurg ence filed a motion to reinstate a nd a sec ond motion fo r d e fa ult jud g me nt o n Jun e 21 , 2 00 7, and pr ov ide d a dd iti on a l do c ume nts . T he tr ia l c ourt did
no t r ule on e ith e r m oti on s. On

Au gus t 22 , 2 00 7, Re surg e nc e fi le d a tr ia l br ie f i n s up po rt

of its mot ion fo r d e fa ult jud g me nt.-3-

On September

11, 2007, Resurg ence filed a N otice of A ppeal c halleng ing the trial court’ s d i s m i s s a l o f

th e c a s e f

o r w an to f p r o s e c ut i o nan d

f a i l ur e t o r e n d e r

d e f a u l tj u d g m e n tf

o r th e e n t i ty. Re surg e nc e ra ise s o nly

on e iss ue on

a pp e a l: the tr ia l c ourt

e rr e d b y dis mis sin gthe c a se for wa nt of prosec ution and denying the entity of a de fault judg ment on liquidated damag es wh e re the de fe nd ant f

a ile d to ans we r. We r e vie w a tr ia l c ourt ’s de nia l of

a mot ion fo r d e fa ult judgme nt under a

n abuse of

discretion standa

rd. See A guilar v. Livingston , 154 S.W .3d 832, 833 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). The trial court ha s discretion over the deter mination of fac tual matters but abuse s its dis cre tion if it fails to analy ze or apply

the law
corr ectly
. Se eid . In a civil ca se in which the judg ment or amount in controve rsy exceeds $250 aside fr om interest and c osts, an appellate court ha s jurisdiction to review only the trial cour

t’s final judg ment unless a statute spec ifically authorizes otherwise. See T EX .C IV .P R AC .& R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51 .0 12 (V e rn on Sup p. 20 09 ); Sto lha nd

sk ev . S te rn , 14 S.W .3d 810, 813 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)
. A def endant’ s answer

is due on the first Monday afte r twenty

day s have pa ssed from the date the de fenda

nt was ser ved with citation. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 99 (b ). A p la int if f c an r e qu e st defa ult judgment whe n the def endant’ s deadline to file a n answe r has e x pired a

nd the citation and proof of service have be en on file w ith the clerk at least ten day s, not counting the day of filing and the da

y of judg ment. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 10 7; Union Pacific Corp. v. Legg , 49 S.W .3d 72, 78 (Tex.App--Austin 2001, no pet.). H oweve r, the lawpermits a cour t to dism iss for want of pr os e c uti on

wh e n a pla int if f f a ils to s ho w that it

is e nti tle d to a

de fa ult jud g me nt b y

a c ourt order ed dea dline. See Crown Asset Mgmt. L.L.C. v. Lori ng , 2009 WL2596101 (Tex.App.-- Dallas August 25, 2009, pet. filed).-4-

By defa ult, a defe ndant admits all fac tual alleg ations in the plaintiff’s petition except unliquidated damag es. See A rgyle Me ch., Inc . v. Unigus Stee l, Inc. , 156 S.W .3d 685, 687 (T e x.Ap p. -- Da lla s 2 00 5, no pe t.) . A s f or liq uid ate d d ama g e s, a

tr ia l c ourt

c an e nte r a

de fa ult judgme nt if it can ver ify

the damag es by

looking at the alleg ations in the petition and written instruments. See T EX .R.C IV .P. 24 1; W hit ak e r v . R os e , 218 S.W .3d 216, 220 (Tex.App.--Houston [14t h Dist.] 2007, no pet.). A c laim is li quidated if the a mount of damag es may

be ca lculated
acc urate ly

from the f

actua l alleg ations in the petition and written instruments. See A rgyle Me ch., Inc. , 156 S.W .3d at 688. A cour t determines whe ther a

claim is liquidated from the languag e of a petition because a see mingly liquidated claim may

be unliquidated bec ause of pleading alleg ations that require proof f or re solution. See A renivar v. Providian Nat. Bank, 23 S.W .3d 496, 498 (Tex.App.--Ama rillo 2000, no pet.). Her e, we can only

revie w the dismissal order be cause it is t he trial c ourt’s sole fina l judgme nt. See T EX .C IV .P R AC .&R EM .C ODE ANN . § 51 .0 12 ; Stolhandske , 1 4 S. W.3 d at 81 3. Th is
means we can only

consider Re surg ence ’s orig inal petition and first motion for defa ult judgment
as we ll as the documents attac hed to them bec ause Resur g ence prese nted these to the tria l court prior to the dismissal. Se eid . Be cause the trial cour t did not rule on the second motion for de fa ult jud g me nt o r m oti on

to r e ins tate , w e c ann ot c on sid e r t ho se mot ion s o r t

he do c ume nts attache d to them. Se eid
. The stateme nt of Ms. Curry ’s ac count that Resurg ence attache d to its original petition and deeme d admissions indi cate she agree d to a contra ctual intere st rate of 6 perc ent on the ac count. Howeve r, it fails to state whethe r this is computed as simple interest. Althoug h the evidenc e
re fl e c ts M s. Cur

ry ’s outst and ingba lanc e on he r a c c ount a s o f O c tob e r 3 1, 20 06 , a s $ 10 ,7 46 .6 9, it-5-

provides no def

initive basis for ca lculatingthe principa l and intere st due beyond that date. B e c a us e the e vid e nc e of

fe re d b y Re surg e nc e did

no t pr ov ide su ff

ic ie nt i nf or matio n to c a lc ulate the intere st due on the outstandingacc ount balance , the trial cour t was not able to c alculate the amount of dama g es ac curately based on the fac tual alleg ations in order to re nder Resur g ence a liq uid ate d d ama g e awa

rd . E ve n th ou g h Re surg e nc e fi le d a mot ion fo r d e fa ult jud g me nt, its evidenc e wa s insufficient to support the def ault judgme nt it requested, a nd so Resurg ence failed to establish that it is entitled to the judgme nt it requested. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismi ssing the c ase f or wa nt of prosec ution and denying Re surg ence ’s motion for def ault judgme nt. There fore , we ove rrule the entity ’s sole issue. Havingoverr

uled Resurg ence ’s issue pre sented for revie w, we a ffirm the tria l court’s jud g me nt.

November

12, 2009 DAVI D WEL L I NGTONCHEW, C hief Just ice B e f o r e C h e w , C
. J. , M c C l ur e , a n d R i v e r a , JJ.