04-15-00563-CV

******************************************************************

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT SITTING IN SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

******************************************************************

HOLLY RIDGE UNITED HEALTHCARE, P.A., Appellant

vs. UNITED BIOLOGICS, LLC d/b/a UNITED ALLERGY SERVICES, Appellee

************************************************************************ Appellant’s Brief

******************************************************************
WILLIAM M. NICHOLS, P.C. William M. Nichols State Bar No. 15006800 McAllister Plaza, suite 1250 9601 McAllister Freeway San Antonio, Texas 78216-5150 Telephone: 210/340-8880 Facsimile: 210/340-8885 william@wmnlawsa.com ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED ACCEPTED 04-15-00563-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 10/7/2015 3:24:30 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERKI DENTI TI ES OF ALL PARTI ES AND THEI R COUNSEL

Co u n s el fo r Ap p el l an t Ho l l y Ri d g e Un i t ed Healthcare, P.A. :
W ILLIAM M . NICHOLS, P.C. W i ll i am M . Ni ch o l s M cAl l i st er Pl aza, s ui t e 1 2 5 0 9 6 0 1 M cAl l is t er Freeway San An t o n i o , Tex as 7 8 2 1 6-5 15 0 Tel ep h on e: 2 1 0/ 3 4 0 -8 8 80 Facs i m i l e: 2 1 0 / 34 0 -8 8 8 5 wi l l i am @ wm

n l aws a.co m
Co u n s el fo r Ap p el l ee Un it ed Bi o l o g i cs , LLC d / b /a Un i t ed Al l erg y Serv i ces :
LAW OFFICES OF J OHN HENRY, P.C. J o h n P. Hen ry 4 0 7 W es t Li b ert y St reet Ro u n d Ro ck , Tex as 7 8 6 6 4 Tel ep h on e: 5 1 2/ 9 8 1 -7 3 01 Facs i m i l e: 8 8 8 / 90 9 -9 3 1 2 jh en ry @jh en ry l aw.co m
Tri al J u d g e:
Ho n . J as o n W o l ff Co u n t y Co u rt at Law Nu m b er 2 3 0 0 Do l o ro s a St reet San An t o n i o , Tex as 7 8 2 0 5

Appellant’s B rief Pag e iiTABLE OF CONTENTS

IDENTITIES OF ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL ...................................i i

TABLE OF CONTENTS .........................................................................................i i i

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ....................................................................................v REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUM ENT .....................................................................1

STATEM ENT OF THE NATURE AND RESULT OF THE CASE .......................1

ISSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL .......................................................................1

STATEM ENT OF FACTS .......................................................................................1 ISSUE I (RESTATED) ............................................................................................3

ISSUE I: Th e p o s t -ju dg m en t fi l i n g s b y Ap p el l an t , at t em p t i n g t o act p r o s e, d i d n o t
co n s t i tu t e a m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al so as t o ex t en d t h e t i m e fo r p erfect i n g ap p eal

SUM M ARY OF ARGUM ENT (ISSUE I) ...............................................................3

ARGUM ENT AND AUTHORITIES (ISSUE I) ......................................................4 ISSUE II (RESTATED) ............................................................................................5

ISSUE II: Fai l u re t o co m p ly wi t h t h e req ui r em en t s o f TEX. R. CIV. P. 1 0 8 ren d ers t h i s s erv i ce o f p ro ces s fat al l y d efect i v e
SUM M ARY OF ARGUM ENT (ISSUE II) ..............................................................5

ARGUM ENT AND AUTHORITIES (ISSUE II) .....................................................5 ISSUE III (RESTATED) ..........................................................................................7

Appellant’s B rief Pag e iiiISSUE III: Fai l u re t o co m p ly wi t h t h e req ui rem en t s o f TE X

. R. CIV. P. 1 0 7 ren d ers t h i s s erv i ce o f p ro ces s fat al l y d efect i v e
SUM M ARY OF ARGUM ENT (ISSUE III) ............................................................7

ARGUM ENT AND AUTHORITIES (ISSUE III) ..................................................7

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................9

PRAYER ...................................................................................................................9

CERTIFICATE OF COM PLIANCE ......................................................................1 0

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................1 0

Appellant’s B rief Pag e ivINDEX OF AUTHORI TI ES

Ca s es
Do ct o r V. Pa r d

u e, 1 8 6 S.W .3 d 4 (Tex

. A p p

. - Ho u s to n (1 s t Di s t .) 2 0 05 , rev i ew d en i ed ) ............................................................................................................4

Fi n l ey v. J.C. Pa ce Lt d

. , 4 S.W .3 d 3 1 9 (Tex . Ap p

. - Ho u s t o n [1 s t Di s t .] 1 9 9 9 , n o p et .).............................................................................................................4

Gr a pevi n e Tr u cki n g

, In c. v. S h ep h er d , 3 6 6 S.W .2 d 9 5 0 (Tex

. Ci v
. A pp

. - Fo rt W o rt h, 1 9 6 3 , wri t ref. n .r.e.) .......................................................................................8

Gu t ier r ez v. Cu el l a r , 2 3 6 S.W . 4 9 7 , 4 9 9 (Tex . Ci v . Ap p. - San An to n i o 1 9 2 2 , n o wri t) ............................................................................................................6

Jo h ns t o n v. Jo hn s to n , 5 7 5 S.W .2 d 6 10 (Tex . Ci v
. Ap p . - San An t o n i o 1 9 7 8 , n o wri t ) ...........................................................................................................6

Mer cer v. Ba n d , 4 5 4 S.W .2 d 8 3 3 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p . - Ho u s t o n [1 4 th Di st .] 1 9 7 0 , n o wri t) ............................................................................................................4

Pr i ma t e Co n st r u ct i o n, In c. v. S i l ver , 8 8 4 S.W .2 d 1 51 (Tex . 1 9 9 4 ) ........................8

Tu l l i s v. S co tt , 3 8 Tex . 5 3 7 (1 8 7 3 ) ............................................................................8

S cu cch i v. W

oo d r u f f , 5 0 3 S.W .2 d 3 5 6 (Tex . Ci v . Ap p . - Fo rt W o rt h 1 9 7 3,
n o wri t) .........................................................................................................6 , 7

S h a mr o ck Oi l Co

. v

. Gu l

f Co a s t Na tu r al Ga s , In c. 6 8 S.W .3 d 7 3 7 , 7 3 9 (Tex .- Ap p

. - Ho u st o n [1 4t h Di s t .] 2 0 0 1 , rev iew d en i ed ) ....................................................7

U p h a m v. B o a z W

el l S er vi ce, In c
. 3 5 7 S.W .2 d 4 1 1 (Tex

. Ci v. A p p

. - Fo rt W o r t h 1 9 6 2 , n o wri t ) .................................................................................................6

Appellant’s B rief Pag e vW

o o d a ll v. La n s f o r d , 2 5 4 S.W .2 d 5 4 0 (Tex . Ci v . Ap p . - Fo rt W o rt h 1 9 5 3,
n o wri t) ............................................................................................................8

Sta tutes a nd Rul es
TEX. R. CIV. P. 9 9 (a) ............................................................................................7 -8

TEX. R. CIV. P. 1 0 7

. .............................................................................................1 , 7

TEX. R. CIV. P. 1 0 8 ...........................................................................................1 ,5 , 6

TEX. R. CIV. P 1 2 0 a(1 ) ............................................................................................2

TEX. R. APP. P. 2 5 .1 (d )(7 ) .......................................................................................5

TEX. R. APP. P. 2 6 .1 (c) ...........................................................................................5

TEX. R. APP. P. 3 0

. . ...............................................................................................1 , 5

Appellant’s B rief Pag e viR EQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Ap p el l an t req u es t s o ral arg u m en t.

STATEMENT OF T HE NATURE AND RESULT OF THE CASE

Th i s i s a res t ri ct ed ap p eal fro m a n o an s wer d efau l t ju d g m en t i n w h i ch n o

m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al was fi l ed

. S ee TEX. R. APP. P. 3 0

.
I SSUES PRESENTED ON APPEAL

ISSUE I: Th e p o s t-ju d g m en t fi li n gs by Ap p el lan t , at t em p ti n g t o act p r o s e , d i d n o t

co n s t i tu t e a m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al s o as to ex t en d t h e t i m e fo r p erfect i n g

ap p eal

. ISSUE II: Fai l u re t o co m p l y wi t h th e req u irem en t s o f TEX. R. CIV. P. 1 08 ren d ers

t h i s s erv i ce o f p ro ces s fat al ly d efect i v e.
ISSUE III: Fai l u re t o co m p l y wi t h th e req u irem en t s o f TEX. R. CIV. P. 1 0 7 ren d ers

t h i s s erv i ce o f p ro ces s fat al ly d efect i v e.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

Th i s is a s u i t b ro u g h t b y Ap p el l ee ag ai n s t A p p e l l a nt , a No rt h Caro l i n a

co rp o rat i o n, al l e g i n g b reach o f co n t ract

. (CR 5 -8 ) Su i t p ap ers were s erv ed u p o n Ap p el l an t ’ s reg i st ered ag en t, J am es H. Pri d gen , M .D. i n No rt h Caro l i n a. (CR 9 ) Th e

ret u rn d es cri b es t h e i tem

s erv ed as a “ co p y o f p l ai n t i ff’ s p et i t i on .” (CR 9 ) It m ak es

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 1n o m en t i on o f t h e i n di vi d u al s erv i n g b ei n g ab o ve t h e ag e o f ei g h t een o r n o t h av i n g

an i n t eres t i n t h e cas e. (CR 9 )

Dr. Pri d gen fi l ed a “ Sp eci al an d L im it ed Ap p earan ce an d M ot i o n t o Di s m i ss
fo r Lack o f Pers o n al J u ri s d i c t i o n o f Ho l l y Ri dg e Heal t h care, PA b y i t s Reg i s t ered Ag en t , Pro Se”. (C R 1 0 ) Th i s d o cu m en t was n ot v eri fi ed

. S ee TEX. R. CIV. P

1 2 0 a(1 ). In res po n s e t o Ap pel l ee’ s o b ject i o n s to t h at s p eci al ap p earan ce, Dr. Pri d g en
fi led an “ Am en d ed Sp eci al an d Li m i t ed Ap pearan ce an d M o t i o n t o Di s m i s s fo r Lack

o f Pers o n al J u ri s d i ct i o n o f H o l ly Ri d g e Heal t h care, PA b y it s Reg i s t ered Ag en t , Pro

Se an d Res p o n s e t o Pl ai n t i ff’ s M o t i o n Serv ed o n Defen d an t o n Feb ru ary 14 , 2 0 1 5 "

. (CR 6 2 ) N o a n s wer was fi l ed s u b ject to t h e Sp eci al Ap p earan ces

. T h e Am en d ed Sp eci al Ap p earan ce re q u e s t ed “ an ad d i t io n al 6 0 d ay s t o fi le an an s wer o r i n t h e
al t ern at i v e res p o n s i v e pl ead i ng ” i n t h e ev en t t h e p l ea t o t h e ju ri s d i ct i o n was

o v erru l ed . (CR 6 6 )

On Feb ru ary 1 0 , 2 0 1 5, Ap p el l ee s et Ap p el l an t ’s S p eci al A p p earan ce fo r a
M arch 5 , 2 01 5 h eari ng , an d s erv ed n o t i ce o f t h at h eari n g o n Dr. Pri d g en by cert i fi ed

m ai l

. (CR 6 0 -1 ) Th e t ri al co u rt s i g n ed an Ord er d en y i n g t he s peci al ap pearan ce. (CR

7 4 )

On Ap ri l 7 , 2 0 1 5 , Ap p el l ee fi l ed i t s Mo t i on fo r D efau l t Ju d gm en t

. (CR 7 5 )

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 2It s t at es t h at Ap pel l an t has n o t fi l e d a n a n s wer. (CR 7 6 ) T h ere i s n o cert i fi cat e o f

s erv i ce i n d i cat i n g s erv i ce o f th at p l ead in g o n Ap p el l an t

. It co n t ai n s a Cert i fi cat e o f

Las t Kn o wn Ad d res s

. (CR 7 8 )

A d efau l t ju d g em en t was s i g n ed o n J u l y 9 , 2 0 1 5

. (CR 1 3 3-5 ) T h e t ri al co u rt
fo u n d t h at Ap p el lan t “ d i d n o t f i l e an an s w er o r an y ot h er p l ead i n g co n st i tu t i n g an

an s wer.” (CR 1 3 5 )

On Au g u s t 1 0, 2 0 1 5 , Dr. Pri d g en fi l ed t wo m o re i t em s : “ Affi d av i t i n Su p p o rt

o f M o t io n t o Set As i d e Defau l t J u d g m en t an d Ord er”, an d “ Po i nt s an d Au t h o ri t i es ”. (CR 1 3 6 , 1 3 8 ) Ho wev er, n o m o t i o n fo r n ew tri al or m o t io n t o s et as i d e d efau l t ju d g m en t was fi l ed

. T h e Po i n t s an d Au t h o ri ti es ci te t h e co u rt to t h e Nev ad a Ru l es o f

Ci v il Pro ced u re. (CR 1 3 8 ) Bo t h were s i g n ed : “ J am es M . Pri d g en , M

. D., p ro s e o n
b eh al f o f Ho l l y

Ri d ge Heal th care”. (CR 1 3 7 , 1 3 9)

An an s wer was no t fi l ed b y an at to rn ey

u n t i l Au gu s t 1 2 , 2 0 1 5 . (CR 1 4 5 )

I SSUE I (RESTATED)

ISSUE I: Th e p o s t-ju d g m en t fi li n gs by Ap p el lan t , at t em p ti n g t o act p r o s e, d i d n o t

co n s t i tu t e a m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al so as t o ex t en d t h e t i m e fo r p erfect i n g

ap p eal

. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT (I SSUE I )

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 3Th e t wo i t em s fi l ed by D r. Pri d g en fo ll o wi ng t h e en t ry o f t h e d efau l t ju d g m en t

d o n o t co n s t i t u t e a m o ti o n fo r n ew t ri al

. Th erefo re, t h i s cas e i s p ro p erl y b ro u g h t as

a res t ri ct ed ap peal

.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES (I SSUE I )

Th e s u b s tan ce o f a m o t i o n i s n o t d e t e rm in ed s o l el y fro m i ts cap t i o n o r
i n t ro du ct i o n , b u t in s tead i s g l ean ed fro m t h e b o d y o f t h e m o t i o n an d t he p ray er fo r
rel i e f

. D o ct o r V. P a r du e, 1 86 S.W .3 d 4 , 1 6 (Tex

. Ap p. - H o u s t o n (1 s t Di s t .) 2 0 0 5,

rev i ew den ied ); F

i n l ey v. J.C. Pa ce Lt d

. , 4 S.W .3 d 3 1 9 , 3 2 0 (Tex

. A p p .- H o u s t o n [1 s t
Di s t .] 1 9 9 9 , n o p et .). “ Fo r a new tri al m o t i o n t o h av e effi cacy as s u ch , i t m u s t , b y t h e

v ery n a t u re o f s u ch an i ns t ru m en t , s eek t o h av e an ex i s ti n g ju d g m en t s et as i d e an d

req u es t a rel i t i g at i o n o f t h e i s su es

. An i ns t ru m en t n o m i n al l y fi l ed u n d e r th e ru l es

ap p li cab l e t o n ew t ri al s (Ru l es 3 2 0 , 3 2 9 , T e x as Ru l es o f Ci v il Pro ced u re) m u s t

co m p l y wi t h t h es e m i n i m

u m req u i rem en t s or i t i s s o m et hi n g o t h er t h an a m o t i o n fo r

n ew tri al

. ” Mer cer

v. Ba n d , 4 5 4 S.W .2 d 8 3 3 , 8 3 6 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p

. - Ho us t o n [1 4 th

Di s t .] 19 7 0 , n .w.h .).

W h i l e D r. Pri d gen fi l ed h i s Affi dav i t i n Su p po rt o f Mo t i on to Set As i d e Defau l t

J u d g m en t an d O rd er, an d h i s Po i n t s an d Au t h o ri t i es , he fi l ed no t hi n g t h at w a s

cap t i on ed as a m o t i o n fo r new t ri al

. Nei t h er o f t h e i t em s h e di d fi l e m ak e a req u es t o r

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 4p ray er fo r an y rel ief.

Hav i n g n o t p art i ci pat ed i n t h e t ri al co u rt p ro ceed i n g s, ei t h er p e r s o n al l y o r

t h ro u g h co un s el , an d h av i ng fi l ed n o m ot i o n fo r n ew t ri al , t h e cas e was p ro perl y an d

t i m el y perfect ed as a res t ri ct ed ap p eal on Au g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 5

. S e e TEX. R. APP. P.

2 5 .1 (d )(7 ); 2 6.1 (c); & 3 0. (CR 1 4 7 ). 1

ISSUE I I (RESTATED)

ISSUE II: Fai l u re t o co m p ly wi t h t h e req u i rem en t s of TEX. R. CIV. P. 10 8 ren d ers

t h i s s erv i ce o f p ro ces s fat al ly d efect i v e. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT (I SSUE I I )

Th e o ffi cer’ s ret u rn o f serv i ce o n t h is No rt h Caro l i n a c o r p o rat io n s erv ed in

No rt h Caro l i n a d o es no t es tab l i s h t h at t h e p ers o n s erv i n g i t was ov er ei g h t een y ears

o l d an d h ad n o i nt eres t i n t h e cas e. Th erefo re, s erv i ce was fat al l y d efect i v e an d t h e

t ri al co u rt h ad n o ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er Ap p el l an t

.

A RGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES (I SSUE I I )

Pl ai n t i ff’ s Ori g in al Pet i t i o n s t at es t ha t Ap pel l an t i s a No rt h Caro l i n a

co rp o rat i o n, wi t h i ts p ri n ci p al p l ace o f b u s i n es s an d reg i s t ered ag en t i n t h at St at e.

1 In the event this Court determ ines that Appellant’s post-judgm ent f i lings constituted a m o tion f

or new trial, their def

iciencies notwithstanding , Appellant alternatively perfected this appeal in a timely fashion. (CR 147) The issues before this Court relating to effectiveness of service are identical. Appellant’s B rief Pag e 5(CR 5) Th e Ci t at i o n an d Ret u rn co n fi rm t h at t he reg i s t ered ag en t w as s erv ed t h ere.

(CR 9 ) A s s u c h , serv i ce o f p ro ces s m u st be acco m

pl i s h ed un d er Ru l e 1 0 8 o f t h e
Tex as Ru l es o f Ci v il Pro ced u re, wh i ch p ro v id es i n p ert i n en t p art :

“ W h ere th e d efen d an t i s ab s en t fro m t h e St at e, o r i s a no n res id en t o f th e St at e, t h e fo rm

o f n o t i ce t o s u ch d efen dan t o f t h e i ns t i t u ti o n o f t h e s u i t
s h al l b e t h e s am e as p res cri b ed fo r ci t at i o n t o a res i d en t d efen d an t ; an d
s u ch n o t i ce m a y b e s erv ed by an y d i s in t eres ted p ers o n wh o i s no t l es s t h an ei g h teen y ears o f ag e, i n t h e s am e m an n er as pro v i d ed i n Ru l e 1 0 6 h ereo f. Th e ret u rn of s erv ice i n s u ch cas es s h al l b e co m p l et ed i n acco rd an ce wi t h Ru l e 1 0 7 .” TEX. R. CIV. P. 1 0 8

. Th e Offi cer’ s Ret u rn l ack s an y m en t i on t h at t h e s erv i c e w a s m ad e “ b y [a]

d i s i n t eres t ed p ers on w h o i s no t l es s t han ei g h teen y ears o f ag e.” W h e n ci t at i o n i s
d i rect ed t o a n o n
- r e s i d en t d efen d an t , it is m an d at o ry t h at t he ret u rn o f th e p ers o n

m ak i n g s erv i ce u po n t h at d efen d an t s h o w t h at h e i s i n n o m a n n e r i n t eres t ed i n t h e

cau s e i n q u es t i o n, an d a ret u rn o f ci t at io n l ack i n g s u ch i s “ fat al l y d efect i v e.” S cu cch i

v. W o od r u f f , 5 0 3 S.W .2 d 3 56 , 3 5 8 -9 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p

. - Fo rt W o rt h 1 9 73 , n o w r i t );
Up h a m v. Bo a z W

el l S er vi ce, In c
. 3 5 7 S.W .2 d 4 1 1 , 4 1 8 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p

. - Fo rt W o rt h

1 9 6 2 , n o wri t ). S

ee Jo h n s t o n v. Jo h n s t o n , 5 7 5 S.W .2 d 6 1 0 , 6 12 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p

. - San

An t on i o 1 9 7 8 , n o wri t ).

“ It i s wel l s et tl ed t hat [ru l es ] pres cri b i ng th e es s en t i a l s o f a ci t at i o n are

m an d at o ry an d m

u s t b e s t ri ct l y co n s t ru ed , an d t h at , un l es s t h e ci t at io n b e in

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 6s u b s t an t i al co m p l i an ce wi t h t h es e s t at u t o ry re q u i r e m en ts , i t wi l l n o t s u p p o rt a ju d g m en t b y d efau l t .” G u ti er rez v. Cu el l a r , 23 6 S.W

. 4 9 7 , 4 9 9 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p

. - San

An t on i o 1 92 2 , n .w.h .). Bei ng fat al ly d efect i v e, t hi s ci t at i on wi l l n o t s u p p o rt t h i s
d efau l t ju d g m en t. S

cu cch i v. W

o o dr u ff , s up r a.
I SSUE I I I (RESTATED)

ISSUE II: Fai l u re t o co m p l y wi t h t h e req u i rem en t s of TEX. R. CIV. P. 10 7 ren d ers

t h i s s erv i ce o f p ro ces s fat al ly d efect i v e. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT (I SSUE I I I )

Ci t at i o n i s fu rt h er d efect i v e b ecau s e t h e O f f i c e r ’ s Ret u rn d o es n o t co rrect l y
d es cri b e t h e i t em s s erv ed

.

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORI TI ES (I SSUE I II )

Ru l e 1 0 7 req u i res t h at t h e r e t u rn m u st i ncl u d e “ a d es cri p t i o n o f wh at was

s erv ed ....” TEX. R. CIV. P 1 07 (b )(3 ). In t h e i n s t an t cas e, wh at t he ret urn d es cri b es
i s a “ co p y o f p l ai n t i ff’ s p et it i o n .” (CR 9 ) Ho wev er, t h e co u r t ’s f i l e s h o w s t h at t h e
d o cu m en t fi l ed was “ Pl ai n t i ff’ s Ori g i n al Pet i t i o n & Req u es t fo r D i s cl o s u re.” (CR 5 )

Al t h ou g h Ru l e 10 7 d oes n o t ex p res s l y req u i re t h e ret urn o f s erv i ce t o l i s t
d o cu m en t s s erv ed wi t h th e ci t at i o n , u n l es s i t d o e s s o i t i s i m p o s s ib l e t o t el l i f t h ere
h as b een co m

p l i an ce wi t h t h e s erv i ce ru l es

. S h a mr ock Oi l Co

. v

. Gu l

f Co a s t Na t u r al

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 7Ga s , In c. 6 8 S.W .3 d 7 3 7 , 7 3 9 (Tex .- Ap p

. - Ho us t o n [1 4 t h Di s t .] 2 00 1 , rev i ew

d en ied ). “ Up o n t h e fi l i n g o f t h e p et i t i o n , t h e cl erk , wh en req u es t ed , s h al l fo rt h wi th

i s su e a ci t at i o n an d d el i v er t h e ci t at i o n as d i rect ed b y t h e req u es t i ng p art y .” TEX. R.

CIV. P. 9 9 (a). It i s t h e res p o n s i b i l i t y o f th e o n e req ues t i n g s erv i ce, n o t t h e p ro ces s

s e rv er, t o s ee t h at s erv i ce i s pro p erl y acco m pl i s h ed

. Pr i ma t e Co n st r u ct i o n, In c. v

. S i l ver , 8 84 S.W .2 d 1 51 , 1 5 3 (Tex

. 19 9 4 ). In t h at cas e -- i n wh i ch a d efau l t ju d g m en t

was rev ers ed b ecau se t h e ci t at i o n , as h ere, i n co rrect l y d es cri b ed t h e d o cu m en t s erv ed

u p o n d efen d an t s -- t h e Co u rt ex p l ai ned : “ Th i s res p o n s i b il i t y ex t en d s t o s e e i n g t h at

s erv i ce i s p ro p e r l y refl ect ed i n t h e reco rd

. Th e Ru l es of Ci v il Pro ced u re al l o w fo r
l i beral am en dm en t o f th e ret u rn o f s erv ice t o s ho w th e t ru e fact s o f s erv i ce. [Ci t at i o n

o m i tt ed .] If t h e fact s as reci t ed i n th e s h eri ff's ret u rn , p re-p ri n ted or o t herwi s e, are
i n co rrect an d d o n o t s h ow p ro p er s erv i ce, th e o n e req u es t i n g s erv i ce m u s t am en d t h e

ret u rn p ri o r t o ju d g m en t .” Id . No s u ch am en d m en t s ap p ear i n t h i s reco rd

. Few h o l d i n g s are as w el l es t ab l is h ed in Tex a s j u r i s p ru d en ce as t h i s : No

p res u m p t i o n s wi l l b e i n d ul g ed t o ai d a ret u r n o n a c i t a t io n i n o rd er t o s u p p o rt a ju d g m en t b y d efau l t. E .g ., Tu l l i s v. S co t t , 38 Tex

. 5 3 7, 5 42 (1 8 7 3 ); W o o d a ll v.
L a n s f o r d , 2 5 4 S.W

. 2 d 5 4 0 , 54 3 (Tex

. Ci v. Ap p

. - Fo rt W o rt h 1 9 5 3 , n .w.h .);

Gr a pevi n e Tr u cki n g

, In c. v. S h ep h er d , 3 6 6 S.W .2 d 95 0 , 9 5 2 (Tex

. Ci v
. Ap p. - Fo rt

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 8W o rt h , 1 9 6 3 , ref., n.r.e.). Si n ce co m p l ian ce i s n o t s h o w n o n i t s face, t h e d efau l t ju d g m en t can n o t s t an d

. CONCLUSI ON Ap p el l an t h as p ro p erl y p res en t ed t o t h is Co u rt as a res t ri ct ed ap p eal t w o b as es
fo r rev ers al res u l t i n g fro m fat al l y d efect i v e s erv i ce.
PRAYER

W HEREFORE, PREM ISES CONSIDERED, Ap p el lan t p ray s t h at t h i s Co u rt

rev ers e t h e ju d g m en t o f th e t ri al co u rt an d rem an d t h e cas e t o t h at co u rt ; tax al l co s t s

o v er an d ag ai n s t Ap p el l ee; an d fo r al l fu rt h er rel i ef, at l aw o r in eq u i t y , t o wh i ch i t

m ay s h ow i t s el f ju s t l y

en t i t l ed

. Res p ect fu l ly s u b m i t t ed , W ILLIAM M . NICHOLS, P.C. M cAl l is t er Pl aza, Su i t e 1 2 50 9 6 01 M cAl l i s t er Freeway San An t on i o , Tex as 7 8 2 1 6 -5 1 5 0 Tel ep h o n e: 2 1 0 / 3 40 -8 8 8 0 Facs i m i l e: 2 1 0 / 3 4 0 -8 8 8 5 wi l l i am @ wm

n l aws a.co m

By : /s / W i l li a m M. Ni ch o l

s W i ll i am M . Ni ch o l s St at e Bar No

. 1 5 0 0 6 8 0 0 ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 9CERTI FI CATE OF COMPLI ANCE

I cert i fy t hat acco rd i n g t o t h e wo rd co u n t o f t h e W ord Perfect p ro gram u s ed to creat e t h is b ri ef th e t o t al n u m ber o f wo rd s co n t ai n ed in p ag es 1 th ro u g h 9 , beg i n n i n g wi t h t h e St at em en t o f Fact s o n p ag e 1 , t h ro ug h t he Pray er o n p ag e 9 i s 8 8 3 6

. / s / W i l l i am M. Ni ch ol

s W i ll i am M . Ni ch o l s
CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE I, W il l i am M. Ni ch ol s , d o cert i fy t h at a t ru e an d co rrect co py o f t he fo reg o i n g p l ead i n g was s en t b y

em ai l t o M r. J o h n P. H en ry , Law o ffi ces o f J oh n Hen ry , P.C., 4 0 7 W es t Li b ert y St reet , Ro u n d Ro ck , Tex as 7 8 6 6 4 (jh en ry @ jh en ry l aw.co m ) o n t h i s 7 t h day o f Oct o b er, 2 0 1 5

.

/ s / W i l l i a m M. Ni ch o l

s W i ll i am M . Ni ch o l s

Appellant’s B rief Pag e 10