law-default-judgment-no-answer-filed | post-answer default judgment | notice of trial | due process |
default judgment cases | bill of review | restricted appeal
NO-ANSWER DEFAULT JUDGMENT
A no-answer default judgment cannot withstand a direct attack by a defendant who shows that
he was not served in strict compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Wilson v.
Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990); Hubicki, 226 S.W.3d at 407. In contrast to the usual
rule that presumptions will be made in support of a judgment, when examining a default
judgment, we accord no presumption of valid issuance, service, or return of citation. Uvalde
Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885 (Tex. 1985) (per curiam).
Failure to strictly comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure renders any attempted service of
process invalid and of no effect. Hubicki, 226 S.W.3d at 408; Wilson, 800 S.W.2d at 836.
In a no-answer default judgment, the defendant’s failure to answer the suit acts as an
admission of all facts properly pled in the petition except for the amount of unliquidated
damages. See Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 930 (Tex. 2009) (per
curiam).
A no-answer default judgment may not be rendered against a defendant who has filed an
answer. Faunce v. NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank, 846 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex. App.-- Houston [14th
Dist.] 1992, no writ) (opinion on rehearing); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 239.
Jackson v. Textron Fin. Corp. (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 14, 2009)(Boyce)
OPINION EXCERPT FROM HOUSTON COURT OF APPEALS CASE
Live Answer Addressing Textron’s Claim
Jackson challenges the propriety of the default judgment entered against him in favor of Textron
because he asserts that he still had a live answer on file addressing Textron’s sworn account claim.
Jackson contends that because the trial court’s February 2 order struck only his second amended
and verified answer, his first amended and verified answer filed December 13, 2005 was revived and
effective to foreclose a no-answer default judgment.
A no-answer default judgment may not be rendered against a defendant who has filed an answer.
Faunce v. NCNB Tex. Nat’l Bank, 846 S.W.2d 876, 877 (Tex. App._Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no writ)
(opinion on rehearing); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 239. The striking of a subsequent answer revives the
most recent prior answer so long as the prior answer is substantially different from the stricken one.
See Vordenbaum v. Ackerman, 393 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tex. Civ. App._San Antonio 1965), aff’d as
reformed, 403 S.W.2d 362 (Tex. 1966); see also Carrillo v. Garzon, No. 14-94-00630-CV, 1995 WL
628156, at *5 n.1 (Tex. App._Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 26, 1995, no writ) (not designated for
publication). Here, Jackson’s prior answer was substantially different because it did not allege that (1)
there were inaccuracies in the amounts Textron charged Jackson; (2) Textron was paid by a third
party for all amounts sued upon; (3) Textron was seeking a “double recovery;” (4) third party criminal
activity was a superseding intervening cause; and (5) Textron failed to join all necessary parties. See
Vordenbaum, 393 S.W.2d at 929.
It is undisputed that the trial court’s February 2, 2007 order struck only Jackson’s second amended
and verified answer filed on December 4, 2006. With regard to Textron’s sworn account claim, the
trial court’s action revived Jackson’s first amended and verified answer filed on December 13, 2005,
as his live answer. See id.
We reject Textron’s argument that a no-answer default judgment was proper because Jackson’s first
amended and verified answer lacked the proper verification to properly address a claim on a sworn
account. Jackson’s live answer defeats a motion for no-answer default judgment regardless of
whether the answer was verified. See Davis v. Jefferies, 764 S.W.2d 559, 560 (Tex. 1989) (per
curiam) (“A default judgment may not be rendered after the defendant has filed an answer.”); Faunce,
846 S.W.2d at 877. We do not address the sufficiency of the verification found in Jackson’s first
amended and verified answer.
Because Jackson’s first amended and verified answer was revived, the trial court erred by signing a
no-answer default judgment against him. See Faunce, 846 S.W.2d at 877.
We sustain Jackson’s issue regarding the trial court’s entry of a no-answer default judgment against
him in favor of Textron.
Jackson v. Textron Fin. Corp. (Tex.App. – Houston [14th Dist.] Apr. 14, 2009)(Boyce)
(no answer default judgment reversed, answer was on file, general vs. sworn denial and counterclaim)
REVERSED AND REMANDED: Opinion by Justice Boyce
Before Justices Frost, Brown and Boyce
14-07-01011-CV Robert W. Jackson v. Textron Financial Corporation and Longagribusiness LLC
N/K/A Farmtrac North America
Appeal from 80th District Court of Harris County
Trial Court Judge: Lynn M. Bradshaw-Hull
HOUSTON COURTS AND CASES | TEXAS CASE LAW |
CAUSES OF ACTION ELEMENTS | HOUSTON CASE LAW | TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE