Court Opinion

ID: 9718133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:17:31.301964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:57.506342
License: Public Domain

ANGELINI, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent and would affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Under Texas law, a motion for new trial is a prerequisite to complaining on appeal that a default judgment should be set aside. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 324(b)(1). In order to set aside a default judgment, the motion for new trial must (1) show the failure to appear was not intentional, (2) set up a meritorious defense, and (3) show that the motion for new trial was filed at a time when granting it would not harm the plaintiff. See Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939). To successfully challenge a post-answer default judgment, the defendant must allege, and support with sworn proof, the three Craddock requirements. See Wiseman v. Levinthal, 821 S.W.2d 439, 441 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, no writ). Further, a motion for new trial to set aside a default judgment is a complaint on which evidence must be heard. *805See Puri v. Mansukhani, 973 S.W.2d 701, 715 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.); Fluty v. Simmons Co., 835 S.W.2d 664, 667 (Tex.App.—Dallas 1992, no writ). Any motion for new trial filed by Mario in an attempt to set aside the default judgment was therefore required to address the Craddock requirements and to be accompanied by a sworn affidavit or a declaration satisfying the requirements of Tex.Civ.PRAc. & Rem.Code Ann. 132.001 et. seq.1
Mario’s notice of appeal, which the majority construes as a motion for new trial, does not meet these requirements. Mario’s notice of appeal reads as follows:
Comes Now Mario G. Zuniga Respondent herein in the above entitled and numbered cause files this Notice Of Appeal as grounds therefor and would show the Court the following. Respondent is not aware of what kind of judgement was signed on March 23, 1998 by Honorable Judge Johnny D. Gabriel Jr. This judgment that was sign [sic] March 23, 1998 could prejudice Respondent because the Court did not bench warrant Respondent to attend the trial on March 23, 1998 to assist Attorney Ad Litem on the merits. A Motion For Issuance of Bench Warrant was filed with the Bexar County District Clerk on February 23, 1998. A Motion For Appointment Of Counsel Attorney Ad Litem was filed with the Bexar County District Clerk on February 23,1998.
I would find that Mario’s notice of appeal, even if construed as a motion for new trial, is insufficient because it does not adequately address the Craddock requirements, is not verified, and does not contain a statement in lieu of a sworn declaration in accordance with § 132.001 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code.
Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court’s judgment.

. Section 132.001 et seq of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code allows inmates to make an unsworn declaration in lieu of a sworn verification if the unsworn declaration is signed by the person making the declaration as true under penalty of perjury and it substantially complies with the wording of the statute.