Court Opinion

ID: 9676274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:19:46.854546+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:46.746240
License: Public Domain

MIRABAL, Justice,
concurring.
I concur on the basis that the face of the record does not show that the defendants were properly served with citation.
The record contains an Illimis form of summons (or citation) that recites “a copy of the summons and complaint” was served. The sheriff’s return does not show that the Texas form of citation was served on each defendant. This is critical because only the Texas form of citation provided information about the defendants’ deadline to file an answer in the trial court; the Illinois form did not provide any such information.
As far as we can tell from this record, the Illinois sheriff may have replaced the Texas citation form with the Illinois citation form; we cannot presume that the Illinois sheriff served three documents (the petition, the Illinois citation, and the Texas citation). There are no presumptions in favor of valid issuance, service, and return of citation when a *148default judgment is attacked by writ of error; failure to show strict compliance will render any attempted service invalid and cause a default judgment to be set aside. Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex.1985); Burns v. State, 881 S.W.2d 132, 133 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ).
Accordingly, I would sustain the defendants’ point of error two, reverse the judgment, and remand.