Court Opinion

ID: 2920786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-11 01:46:12.96311+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:55:52.080878
License: Public Domain

NUMBER 13-02-568-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

___________________________________________________________________

ALBERT WILLIAM CARTER,	Appellant,

v.

ENRIQUE ESTRADA,	Appellee.
___________________________________________________________________

On appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 
of Hidalgo County, Texas.
__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Hinojosa, Rodriguez, and Garza

Opinion by Justice Rodriguez

	This is an appeal from a default judgment entered against appellant, Albert
Carter, in a negligence case.  By his sole issue, appellant complains the trial court erred
as a matter of law in granting the default judgment against him because service was
defective.  We vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
	As this is a memorandum opinion and the parties are familiar with the facts, we
will not recite them here except as necessary to advise the parties of the Court's
decision and the basic reasons for it.  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.              
	Because the issue in this appeal involves the application of well-settled principles
of law, we vacate the default judgment and remand for further proceedings for the
following reasons:

Appellant (1) filed this appeal within six months after the trial court signed the
default judgment, (2) is a named defendant in the lawsuit, and (3) did not
participate at the hearing, thus satisfying the first, second, and third
requirements for successfully attacking a default judgment by a restricted
appeal.  See Carmona v. Bunzl Distribution, 76 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tex.
App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (citing Quaestor Invs., Inc. v. Chiapas, 997
S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1999)); and
 The face of the record fails to show strict compliance with the rules of civil
procedure because the authorized person, in this case the private process
server, did not verify the return of citation.  See id. at 568-69 (citing Tex. R.
Civ. P. 107; McGraw-Hill, Inc. v. Futrell, 823 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tex.
App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied)).  Because appellant has
demonstrated the error is apparent from the face of the record, he has satisfied
the fourth requirement.  See Quaestor Invs., 997 S.W.2d at 227.

	Accordingly, we hold that service of process on appellant was invalid and of no
effect.  We sustain appellant's sole point of error.
	The judgment of the trial court is vacated and this cause is remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings. 
								NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ
								Justice

Opinion delivered and filed
this 30th day of October, 2003.