i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No . 0 4- 07 -0 07 39 -C V J e f f e r y P ERRY , Debor ah Perr

y , Endurastone , L td., Enduraf iber Mana g ement, L L C., Endura Ma

nag ement, L L C., J D Mac & A ssociates, L .P., and Perry Family Manag ement, L L C., Ap pe lla nts
v . Mic ha e l DO HER TY , Sh ir le y Do he rt y , D e br a Do he rt y , a nd Mic he lle J. No e l, Appellee s Fr om the 166th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CI -12167 Honora ble Michae l Peden, J udg e Presiding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: March 4, 2009 AFF I RMED Appellee s Michael Dohe rty , Shirley Doher ty , Debr a Dohe rty , and Miche lle J . Noel (collec tively

“Dohe rty ”) sue d appellants Jeffer y Perry , Debor ah Perr

y , Endurastone , L td., Enduraf iber Mana g ement, L L C., Endura Manag ement, L L C., JD Ma c & A ssociates, L .P., and Perry F amil y Ma na g e me nt, L L C. (c oll e c tiv e ly “ Pe rr y ” ) fo r dama g e s sust a ine d whe n D oh e rt y inv e ste d in P e r r y’ s b u s i n e s s . P e r

r y d i d n o tan s w e r , an da

d e f a u l tj u d g m e n tw a s e n t e r e d i nf av o r o f D o h e rty.04
- 07
- 00 73 9- CV

- 2- After the def ault, Perry

timely filed a m o t i o n fo r new trial, howeve r, no hea ring was he ld on the
mo ti on , and it was ov e rr ule d b y op e ratio n o f l aw. Pe rr

y no w a pp e a ls the g ra

nti ngof the de fa ult jud g me nt a

nd the de nia l of

his mot ion

fo r n e w t ri a l. B e c a us e Pe rr y ha s no t e sta

bli sh e d th e e le me nts
ne e de d to se t a sid e a

de fa ult jud g me nt, we a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt. STA ND AR

D O F RE VI EW We r eview a trial court’s denial of a motion for new tria l after a no-a nswer de fault judg ment for a buse of discretion. In re R.R. , 209 S.W .3d 112, 114 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). I f a de fenda

nt
wa s p ro pe rl y

se rv e d w ithpr oc e ss, in o rd e r t o be grante d a ne w tri a l a ft e r a

no -a ns we r d e fa

ult judgme nt, he must prove the following three elements: (1) his failure to answer or appe ar w as not intentional or the re sult of conscious indiffer ence ; (2) he ha s a meritorious def ense; a n d(3) the g rantingof a ne w trial will not operate to cause delay or other injury to the plaintiff. Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc. , 133 S.W .2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939). I f a de fenda nt was not proper ly

serve d with proce ss, he is g ener ally entitled to a new tr ial without any further showing
. Fi d. & Gu ar . I ns . Co. v. Drewery

Constr. Co., Inc. , 186 S.W .3d 571, 574 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). DI SCU SSIO N A. Se r vic e of P r oc e ss I n his first issue on a

ppeal, Perry

argues the trial c ourt err ed by g rantinga def

ault judgme nt becau s e t h er e w as n o d o cu m en t at i o ni nth e r ec o rdes t ab l i s h i n g s erv i ce o f p ro ce s s . S p ec i fi ca l l y , P err y states: “In the case at bar, there is nothing to indicate in the r ecor d that a citation wa s issued for a ny defe ndant, much less that s er v i ce wa s proper ly made. The re is no re turn of ser vice a s to any defe ndant containe d in the file.” H oweve r, the re cord c ontains a citation re turn from e very named04
- 07
- 00 73 9- CV

- 3- defe ndant in the ca se. The r eturns mee t all the require ments of Tex as Rule of Civil Procedure 107 and we re f

iled with the district clerk more than a month bef ore the defa

ult judgm ent was grante d. Th e re fo re , Pe rr

y ’s a rgume nt i s w ith out me ri t. B. St at ut e of Lim it at ion s I n his second issue on appea l, Per ry argues the trial court e rre d by g rantinga def

ault judgme nt beca use the statute of limi tations had expired on Doher ty ’s ca uses of a ction. Howeve r, unless the defe nse of limitations is specific ally raised, a plaintiff will be able to br ing suit and r ecove r. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 94. I n the pr e se nt ca se , Per ry did no t file any re sp on se to t he su it f ile d a g a ins t hi m;
no r d id h e ra ise lim itatio ns in h is m oti on fo r n e w tri a l. As Pe rr

y fa ile d to ple a d that D oh e rt y ’s c la ims
wer e bar red by limit ations, he is prec luded from r aisingthe issue for the first time on appea l. C. Craddock

Te st Although Perry argues he satisfied all three Craddock require ments, we c onclude his fa ilure to set up a meritorious def ense is dispositive. To set up a mer itorious defense in a motion for new trial, the movant must “alleg e facts which in law would constitute a defe nse to the ca use of a ction
a sse rt e d b y

the pla int if

f, and mus t be su

pp or te d by a ff ida vit s or oth e r e vid e nc e pr ov ingpr ima fa c ie that the def

endant ha s such [a] m eritoriou s d ef en se.” Iv yv . Ca rre ll , 4 0 7 S. W. 2 d 2 1 2 , 2 1 4 ( T e x. 1966). I n his moti on for n ew trial, Perry alleg ed, with no supportive fa ctual alleg ations, that “the pla int if f’ s c la im i s b arr e d be c a

us e of fr a ud , amb iguit

y , an d, inj ur ie s inc ur

re d as a r e su lt o f t

he a c ts of a thi rd pa rt y , n ame ly Sc ott No e l.” Af

fi davit s f ro m a pp e ll ant s J effery

C. Pe rr y and De bo ra h S. Pe rr y we re fi le d in

su pp or t of the mot ion fo r ne w tr ia l, ho we ve r, ne ith e r a ff ida vit a lle g e d a ny fa c ts04
- 07
- 00 73 9- CV

1 ... O n ap p eal , P erry cl ai m s t he exhi b i t s p res ent ed t o t he t ri al co urt duri ng t he d ef aul t jud gm ent heari ng were n o t p ro p e rly e x e c u te d a n d “[t]h is fac t alo n e se ts up a va lid d e fen se o n the p a rt o f t h e A p p e ll a n ts .” H o w e v e r, this arg um en t wa s no t p rese nted t o t he t rial co urt i n hi s m o t i o n f o r ne w t rial , an d t he refo re, ca nn o t b e c o nsid ere d f o r t he f i rst tim e o n a p p e a l.

- 4- that w ou ld c on sti tut e a

de fe ns e to t

he c a us e s o f a c tio n a sse rt e d b y Do he rt y . Ins te a d, the a ff

ida vit s
me re ly re pe a te d the same a sse rt ion of a me ri tor iou s d e fe ns e c on ta ine d in the mot ion

fo r a ne w tri a l. After revie wing the re cord, w e conc lude the trial c ourt did not abuse its di scre tion in overruling the motion for new tria l beca use Perr y failed to set up a

meritorious defe nse. 1 D. Appellate Re cord I n his final issue on appea l, Perry claims the trial cour

t erre d by allowing Doher

ty ’s trial attorney to withdraw e x hibits from the rec ord. He contends t h ere is no way to determine if the
re c or d o n a

pp e a l a c c ur a te ly

re fl e c ts the e xhib it s th at wer e int ro du c e d at th e de fa

ult he ari ng . A s a result, Perry asser

ts this court should a

bate the appea l a

nd g rant him a new trial pursuant to Texas Rul e of A pp ell ate Pr oc e dure 34 .6 (p ro vid ingfo r a bate me nt a

nd ne w t ri a l if re po rt e r’ s r e c or d is inacc urate , lost, or destroy ed). Our e xami natio n of the re c or d re ve a ls tha t the re po rt e r’ s re c or d a

nd the c le rk ’s re c or d b oth
c on ta in s imi lar b ut n ot i de nti c a l e xhibi ts. Ev e n if we a ssume Rul e 34 .6 a pp lie s in thi s c a se , th e ru le do es not entitle the appe llant to a new tria l when the inac curate portion of the r ecor d would not chang e the outcome of the c ase. T EX . R. A PP . P. 3 4. 6( f) (3 ); Sanchez v . Sanchez , 915 S.W .2d 99, 102 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). Her e, none of the exhibit s in question are r eleva nt to the issue of setting up a meritorious defe nse, an issue we believe is dispositi ve. Acc ording ly , a new trial is not required be cause the exhibit s in question do not chang e the outcome on appea l. See R ichards
v . S uc k le , 871 S.W .2d 239, 243 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1994, no writ).04
- 07
- 00 73 9- CV

- 5- CO NC LU SION We o ve rr ule Pe rr y ’s iss ue s o n a

pp e a l and a ff ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.
Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice