Connected Solar, LLC Dba Connected Energy Dba Connected Solar, and Dba Connected Roofing, Robert Alan Bailey AKA Robert Alan Bailey, Jr. v. John Mullins and Janice Mullins

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 2, 2025
• Docket: 04-25-00305-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-25-00305-CV

CONNECTED SOLAR, LLC dba Connected Energy dba Connected Solar, and dba Connected Roofing, Robert Alan Bailey aka Robert Alan Bailey, Jr., Appellants

v.

John MULLINS and Janice Mullins, Appellees

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2024-CI-17193 Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice Lori Massey Brissette, Justice Adrian A. Spears II, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 2, 2025

REVERSED AND REMANDED

On May 13, 2025, appellants filed a notice of restricted appeal from a December 19, 2024

default judgment. To prevail in a restricted appeal, an appellant “must establish that: (1) it filed

notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party

to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment

complained of and did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact 04-24-00305-CV

and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record.” Alexander v. Lynda’s

Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 30.

Here, all four elements are undisputed. The clerk’s record shows that appellants timely

filed their notice of restricted appeal; they were parties to the underlying lawsuit; they did not

participate, either in person or through counsel, in the hearing that resulted in the challenged

judgment; and they did not timely file any postjudgment motions or requests for findings of fact

and conclusions of law. Additionally, the parties agree that there is error apparent on the face of

the record because appellants were not properly served. Accordingly, we reverse the December

19, 2024 default judgment and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

-2-