Court Opinion

ID: 9638633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:49:16.537817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:08.197302
License: Public Domain

CANTU, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. While I agree that the citation in this case may be defective, and that the waiver of service of citation may not comply with Tex.R.Civ.P. 119, I believe the appellant in this case voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court. The majority does not take cognizance of the fact that the written, signed and notarized waiver of citation, also contained the recital that appellant “voluntarily enters his appearance herein and consents that said cause may be tried forthwith.” Such a writing, filed in the trial court, in my opinion, constituted an appearance.
The cornerstone to making an appearance under the current Texas procedures, according to McDonald, is “... affirmative action which impliedly recognizes the court’s jurisdiction over the parties.” 1 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice in District and County Courts § 3.45.1 (1982).1 In Radford v. Radford, 42 S.W.2d 1060 (Tex.Civ.App.—Texarkana 1931, no writ), the language of an admittedly valid waiver also recited “... she makes this her appearance and answer herein and agrees that the same (the suit for divorce) may proceed to trial and judgment as if she had been duly cited according to law.” The court stated that this was an appearance under the general rule that whenever a defendant invokes the judgment of the court other than for a challenge to the jurisdiction, he makes a general appearance, citing as authority St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Hale, 109 Tex. 251, 206 S.W. 75 (1918), which lists numerous authorities supporting the rule. The court also noted it was an appearance under art. 2047, R.S., the verbatim predecessor to Rule 121, stating that an answer is an appearance.2
Nor do I believe that the defect found by the majority in the present case places the defective waiver beyond the purview of constituting an appearance. I know of no rule of law that states that in order to enter an appearance in the district court, the defendant must provide the clerk with his mailing address. Indeed such a distinction would be ludicrous and fly in the face of established precedent. See St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Hale, 109 Tex. 251, 206 S.W. 75 (1918); Toler v. Travis County Child Welfare Unit, 520 S.W.2d 834 (Tex.Civ.App.—Austin 1975, no writ); Holland Page, Inc. v. Capitol Truck & Trailor Co., 518 S.W.2d 441 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont 1974, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
It is routinely held that the filing with the papers in the cause of any writing not going to the jurisdiction of the Court and which asks or consents to action by the Court in the cause constitutes a general appearance. (Emphasis supplied). 6 C.J.S. Appearances § 19. Since the defendant, by entering his appearance in writing and consenting to the trial of the case in his absence, impliedly recognizes the jurisdiction of the court, “the validity or invalidity of the precedent service of citation was entire*822ly immaterial.” St Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. Hale, supra. Having made an appearance, appellant is presumed to be in court and cognizant of all subsequent proceedings in this cause. Carter v. G & L Tool Company of Utah, 428 S.W.2d 677 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1968, no writ).
I would therefore hold that when appellant signed and caused to be filed the instrument denominated by the cause number and style of his divorce, which states that he voluntarily entered his appearance, he did just that.

. Stated otherwise earlier opinions have commented that “... [A]n appearance is said to be strictly voluntary when, without the service of process, a defendant in some manner indicates his intention to submit his person and cause to the jurisdiction of the Court,” York v. State, 73 Tex. 651, 11 S.W. 869 (1889), aff'd, 137 U.S. 15, 11 S.Ct. 9, 34 L.Ed. 604 (1890), and that “... [A]n unqualified appearance [not a special appearance] for any other purpose would amount to a general appearance, and operates as a waiver of any defects in the process.” Rhoades v. El Paso & S.W. Railway Co., 230 S.W. 481 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1921, no writ).

. An answer constitutes an appearance under Tex.R.Civ.P. 121, Pfeiffer v. Bissett, 402 S.W.2d 938 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1966, no writ), and the term “answer” has been held to include all pleadings by the defendant. Lindsey v. Ferguson, 80 S.W.2d 407 (Tex.Civ.App.—Eastland 1935, no writ).