Court Opinion

ID: 9407801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 11:06:59.664321+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.272734
License: Public Domain

Opinion issued July 6, 2023

                                     In The

                              Court of Appeals
                                    For The

                          First District of Texas
                            ————————————
                              NO. 01-22-00218-CV
                           ———————————
              ATLAS SURVIVAL SHELTERS, LLC, Appellant
                                       V.
                            G. R. ISIDRO, Appellee

                   On Appeal from the 164th District Court
                            Harris County, Texas
                      Trial Court Case No. 2022-07486

                                 OPINION

      Appellant Atlas Survival Shelters, LLC (“Atlas LLC”) appeals from appellee

G.R. Isidro’s attempted domestication of a Mississippi judgment in Texas under the

Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (“UEFJA”). TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 35.001 et seq. In two issues, Atlas LLC contends that the judgment
below should be reversed, or alternatively, that this appeal should be dismissed for

lack of jurisdiction because Isidro failed to comply with the mandatory requirements

of the UEFJA.

      Because there is no final Texas judgment from which an appeal may be taken,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

                                    Background

      On February 9, 2022, Isidro filed a “Filing of Foreign Judgment” in Cause

No. 2022-07486, in Harris County, Texas, pursuant to the UEFJA. In that filing,

Isidro stated that a judgment was signed on December 3, 2019, in Cause No. 2019-

142S in the Circuit Court of Walthall County, Mississippi, in the amount of $70,000

in favor of Shirley Allen (“Allen”) and against Atlas LLC. Isidro also stated that the

Mississippi judgment, which was attached to his filing, was assigned to him on

October 7, 2021.

      Isidro asserted below that the Mississippi judgment should be treated in the

same manner as a Texas judgment, as provided for by the UEFJA, because it was

authenticated in accordance with the UEFJA. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE

§ 35.003.

      Isidro attached several other documents to his “Filing of Foreign Judgment.”

They include: a “Motion to Correct Default Judgment Order and Other Relief,” an

“Order of Correction,” and a “Corrected Default Judgment Order.”               These

                                          2
documents show that a corrected judgment was signed by the Mississippi court on

July 9, 2021, nunc pro tunc, changing the name of the defendant/judgment debtor

from “Atlas Shelters” to “Atlas Survival Shelters, Inc.” Under the corrected

judgment, “the relief sought by the Plaintiff, Shirley Allen[,] in the amount of

$70,000 [was] granted and entered against the Defendant, ****Atlas Survival

Shelters, Inc.” (Emphasis in original).

      Additionally, Isidro attached an attestation by the Walthall County Circuit

Clerk authenticating the Mississippi judgment1 and his own “Affidavit on Filing

Foreign Judgment Pursuant to Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act,” in

which he averred that:

1
      We note that the certificate signed by the Walthall County Circuit Court judge
      incorrectly states that the judgment was entered in the case of “Shirly P. Allen vs.
      ATLAS SURVIVAL SHELTERS, LLC.” Atlas LLC does not challenge the
      validity of the authentication of the Mississippi judgment in this appeal.

                                           3
      Although nothing further occurred in the trial court below, Atlas LLC

instituted this appeal on March 24, 2022.2

                             Compliance with the UEFJA

      In two issues, Atlas LLC asserts that we should reverse and remand because

it is not the judgment debtor in the Mississippi judgment and, therefore, Isidro failed

to comply with the mandatory requirements of the UEFJA. Alternatively, Atlas LLC

contends that this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction due to Isidro’s failure to comply

with the requirements of the UEFJA and that we should dismiss the appeal. 3 We

agree, in large part, with these points.

A.    The UEFJA

      The UEFJA provides a means by which an authenticated copy of a foreign

judgment may be filed in a Texas court of competent jurisdiction and become a final

and enforceable Texas judgment. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003; see

Walnut Equip. Leasing Co. v. Wu, 920 S.W.2d 285, 286 (Tex. 1996). The United

States Constitution requires each state to afford full faith and credit to the judicial

proceedings of every other state. See U.S. CONST. art. IV, § 1. Accordingly, a

judgment creditor may choose to seek enforcement of a foreign judgment in Texas,

2
      We granted Atlas LLC’s motion for extension of time to file its notice of appeal.
      TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3.
3
      Isidro did not file an appellee’s brief.
                                                 4
under the UEFJA, by filing an authenticated copy of the foreign judgment with the

clerk of any Texas court. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003(a).

      When a judgment creditor files a foreign judgment in a Texas court under the

UEFJA, the judgment creditor must also file an affidavit stating its own address, as

well as the name and last known post office address of the judgment debtor. Id.

§ 35.004(a). Additionally, the judgment creditor must promptly mail notice of the

filing to the judgment debtor at the address provided in the affidavit and file proof

of that mailing with the clerk of the Texas court. Id. § 35.004(b).

      A foreign judgment that is authenticated and filed in a Texas court, as required

by the UEFJA, shall be treated in the same manner as a judgment of that Texas court.

Id. § 35.003(a)–(b). In that event, the foreign judgment has the same effect, and is

subject to the same procedures, defenses, and proceedings for reopening, vacating,

staying, enforcing, or satisfying a judgment, as a judgment of a Texas court. Id.

§ 35.003(c).

      In other words, once a foreign judgment is authenticated and filed in a Texas

court in compliance with the UEFJA, it becomes a final, enforceable judgment in

Texas. See Walnut Equip., 920 S.W.2d at 286; Moncrief v. Harvey, 805 S.W.2d 20,

22 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1991, no writ) (“When a judgment creditor chooses to

proceed under section 35.003, however, the filing of a foreign judgment partakes of

the nature of both a plaintiff’s original petition and a final judgment: the filing

                                          5
initiates the enforcement proceeding, but it also instantly creates a Texas judgment

that is enforceable.”).4 Stated conversely, if a foreign judgment is not authenticated

and filed in a Texas court in compliance with the UEFJA, it does not become a final,

enforceable Texas judgment. Siddiqui v. NextGear Cap., Inc., 655 S.W.3d 654, 657

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2022, no pet.) (“Compliance with the components of the Act

[is] essential to having a valid Texas judgment.”). Without a final, enforceable

Texas judgment, post-judgment deadlines are not triggered. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. &

REM. CODE § 35.003(c); TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b (a), (g) (stating that motion for new

trial or motion to modify final judgment must be filed within thirty days of date

judgment is signed).

B.    Analysis

      Atlas LLC argues that Isidro’s “Affidavit on Filing Foreign Judgment

Pursuant to Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act” does not comply with

the UEFJA because it lists the wrong entity, and notice was mailed to the wrong

entity, as the judgment debtor in the Mississippi judgment. As a result, according to

Atlas LLC, there is no final and enforceable Texas judgment.

4
      See also Res. Health Servs., Inc. v. Acucare Health Strategies, Inc., No. 14-06-
      00849-CV, 2007 WL 4200587, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29,
      2007, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“If a judgment creditor follows all the procedures of the
      [UEFJA], the foreign judgment becomes a Texas judgment in the court in which it
      is filed.”); Urso v. Lyon Fin. Servs., Inc., 93 S.W.3d 276, 279 (Tex. App.—Houston
      [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.) (“A properly filed foreign judgment has the effect of
      initiating an enforcement proceeding and instantly rendering a valid Texas
      judgment.” (emphasis added)).
                                           6
      To properly domesticate a foreign judgment in Texas under the UEFJA, a

judgment creditor must comply with the following statutory requirements:

      1. File a “copy of a foreign judgment authenticated in accordance with
         an act of congress or a statute of this state . . . in the office of the
         clerk of any court of competent jurisdiction of this state[;]”
      2. At the same time as the filing of the judgment, file with the clerk of
         the court an affidavit showing the name and last known post office
         address of the judgment debtor and the judgment creditor;

      3. Promptly mail notice of the filing of the foreign judgment to the
         judgment debtor at the address provided for the judgment debtor in
         the affidavit;

      4. File proof of mailing of the notice to the judgment debtor with the
         clerk of the court; and

      5. Pay the applicable filing fees.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 35.003(a), 35.004(a)–(b), 35.007.

      Compliance with these requirements of the UEFJA is essential to having a

final, enforceable Texas judgment. Walnut Equip., 920 S.W.2d at 286 (noting that

because Walnut’s “original petition complied with the UE[F]JA in all respects[,] [i]t

became enforceable as a Texas judgment on the date it was filed”); Siddiqui, 655

S.W.3d at 657.5 Failure to do so, results in a procedural (though not jurisdictional)

5
      See also Carter v. Jimerson, 974 S.W.2d 415, 417 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1998, no
      pet.) (“An essential prerequisite to application of the [UEFJA] is compliance with
      its provisions. The filing of a foreign judgment is effective under the [UEFJA] only
      if the filing party follows the statutory requirements of authentication, filing, and
      notice.” (internal citations omitted)); Lawrence Sys., Inc. v. Superior Feeders, Inc.,
      880 S.W.2d 203, 208 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, writ denied) (“The primary
                                            7
bar to the domestication of a foreign judgment in Texas under the UEFJA. See

Tanner v. McCarthy, 274 S.W.3d 311, 316–17 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.]

2008, no pet.) (explaining that failure to file required affidavit under UEFJA was

procedural bar to domestication of foreign judgment but did not affect “the

jurisdiction of the trial court to consider an action under the UEFJA”).

      For example, in Siddiqui, the court of appeals explained that the filing of an

affidavit with the clerk of the court providing the parties’ names and addresses is

mandatory under the UEFJA. 655 S.W.3d at 658. Because the affidavit filed by the

judgment creditor in Siddiqui failed to state that the facts represented within the

affidavit were true and did not demonstrate that the affiant had personal knowledge

of its contents, the affidavit was deficient and did not comply with the filing

requirements of the UEFJA, precluding domestication of the Indiana judgment.6 Id.

at 657–58.

      In Love v. Moreland, the judgment creditor filed only an abstract, or transcript,

of the foreign judgment, not a copy of the judgment itself. 280 S.W.3d 334, 337

(Tex. App.—Amarillo 2008, no pet.). The court of appeals in Love held that because

      purpose for filing a foreign judgment in Texas is enforcement, and an essential
      prerequisite to enforcement is compliance with the provisions of the [UEFJA].”).
6
      See also Tayob v. Quarterspot, Inc., No. 05-15-00897-CV, 2016 WL 7163842, at
      *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 28, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.) (explaining that filing
      affidavit with clerk of the court providing parties’ names and addresses is mandatory
      requirement of UEFJA, and judgment creditor’s failure to file proper affidavit
      resulted in noncompliance with filing requirements of UEFJA, requiring reversal).
                                            8
the judgment creditor did not file the foreign judgment itself, as required by the

UEFJA, the terms of the UEFJA “never [i]nured to her benefit” and the judgment

debtor was not required to attack the foreign judgment within thirty days. Id. (citing

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.003(c); TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b (a), (g)). “In other

words, tendering the ‘transcript’ was not tantamount to entry of a final [Texas]

judgment thereby limiting to thirty days the time period within which [the judgment

debtor] had to attack it.” Id. at 337. The court of appeals further held that, because

there was not a final Texas judgment, the trial court retained its jurisdiction to

adjudicate the validity of the purported notice of filing of a foreign judgment. Id. at

337–38.

      Similarly, in Resource Health Services, Inc. v. Acucare Health Strategies,

Inc., the judgment creditor filed an affidavit in a Texas court seeking to enforce a

Virginia judgment under the UEFJA. No. 14-06-00849-CV, 2007 WL 4200587, at

*1 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 29, 2007, no pet.) (mem. op.). Although

the judgment creditor filed an affidavit, it failed to file the Virginia judgment in the

Texas trial court. Id. The court of appeals held that because the judgment creditor

failed to satisfy the UEFJA’s requirement that an authenticated copy of the judgment

be filed, there was not a final and enforceable Texas judgment. Id. Accordingly,

without a final and enforceable Texas judgment, the court of appeals was required

to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Id. at *1–2.

                                           9
      As these cases demonstrate, a failure to comply with the UEFJA does not

deprive a trial court in Texas of jurisdiction to consider an action under the UEFJA.

Rather, until the requirements of the UEFJA are met, the foreign judgment is not

considered to be final or domesticated in Texas as a matter of law.

      Turning to the facts of this case, the face of Isidro’s “Affidavit on Filing

Foreign Judgment Pursuant to Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act”

shows that it fails to comply with the requirements of the UEFJA. Specifically, the

affiant must state the “name and last known post office address of the judgment

debtor” and that notice of the UEFJA filing was mailed to that same judgment debtor.

TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 35.004(a)–(b). The corrected Mississippi judgment

clearly shows that the defendant/judgment debtor is “Atlas Survival Shelters, Inc.”—

not “Atlas Survival Shelters, LLC,” as stated in Isidro’s affidavit.

      Accordingly, because Isidro’s required affidavit under the UEFJA

misidentifies the judgment debtor as “Atlas Survival Shelters, LLC” and reflects that

the required notice was also given to the wrong entity, we hold that Isidro has not

satisfied the mandatory requirements of the UEFJA. As a result, the filing of the

foreign judgment in this case did not “create[] a Texas judgment that is enforceable.”

See Moncrief, 805 S.W.2d at 22; see also Res. Health Servs., 2007 WL 4200587, at

*1 (“Furthermore, Acucare has not satisfied the [UEFJA’s] requirement that an

authenticated copy of the judgment be filed. Therefore, there is no Texas judgment

                                          10
under the [UEFJA].”). In other words, Isidro’s “Filing of Foreign Judgment,” which

did not comply with the UEFJA’s mandatory requirements, did not result in a final

Texas judgment in the trial court, and did not trigger any post-judgment deadlines.

See Love, 280 S.W.3d at 337–38.

      Because there is not a final, enforceable Texas judgment in the trial court

below that Atlas LLC can appeal, we must dismiss this appeal for lack of appellate

jurisdiction.7 See CMH Homes v. Perez, 340 S.W.3d 444, 447 (Tex. 2011) (“Unless

a statute authorizes an interlocutory appeal, appellate courts generally only have

jurisdiction over final judgments.”); Walnut Equip., 920 S.W.2d at 286 (noting that

because judgment creditor’s petition complied with UEFJA “in all respects,” it

became a final, appealable Texas judgment on date it was filed).8

7
      We acknowledge that Atlas LLC did not raise these arguments challenging Isidro’s
      compliance with the UEFJA in the trial court. But because Isidro’s failure to comply
      with the mandatory requirements of the UEFJA deprives this court of appellate
      jurisdiction, Atlas LLC may raise this argument at any time, including for the first
      time on appeal. See Jack M. Sanders Family Ltd. P’ship v. Roger T. Fridholm
      Revocable, Living Tr., 434 S.W.3d 236, 240 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2014,
      no pet.) (“A final judgment or other appealable interlocutory order is a prerequisite
      of this court’s jurisdiction, and the question [of] whether appellate jurisdiction exists
      cannot be waived or settled by agreement of the parties.”).
8
      See also Res. Health Servs., 2007 WL 4200587, at *1–2 (dismissing judgment
      debtor’s attempted appeal from proceeding under UEFJA for lack of appellate
      jurisdiction because judgment creditor failed to satisfy requirements of UEFJA and,
      therefore, there was no final Texas judgment and “no judgment in the trial court
      from which appeal may be taken”).
                                             11
                                    Conclusion

      Based on all of the reasons above, and the record before us, we hold that there

is not a final, enforceable Texas judgment in this case, as a matter of law, because

Isidro failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of the UEFJA. As a result,

we dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

                                                     Terry Adams
                                                     Chief Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Adams and Justices Guerra and Farris.

                                          12