TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00118-CV
Reynaldo Tavarez, Appellant
v.
John Floyd Smith and Melissa Smith, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 01-383-C277, HONORABLE JOHN R. CARTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
Reynaldo Tavarez brings this restricted appeal after the district court rendered a no-answer
default judgment in favor of John and Melissa Smith and awarded them damages of $455,000. Tavarez
contends that error is apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the default judgment cannot stand
for two reasons. First, he contends that the return of citation is defective on its face because it failed to
reflect the manner in which Tavarez was served. Second, Tavarez contends that the damages awarded to
the Smiths are excessive and unsupported by the evidence. We affirm the district court=s judgment regarding
liability and unliquidated damages. We will reverse the liquidated damages award and render judgment that
John Smith take nothing on that claim. Background
On July 18, 2001, the Smiths commenced the underlying proceeding against Tavarez
alleging that Tavarez=s negligent acts caused his vehicle to collide with the Smiths= vehicle on April 4, 2001,
in Williamson County. John Smith claimed that he was injured as a result of Tavarez=s negligent acts and
Melissa Smith claimed loss of consortium as a result of Tavarez=s negligent acts. When Tavarez failed to file
an answer to the petition or otherwise appear in the lawsuit, the Smiths moved for a default judgment on
liability and requested a hearing before the court to establish the amount of their damages. On October 4,
2001, following a hearing on the Smiths= motion, the district court rendered a default judgment against
Tavarez and assessed liquidated and unliquidated damages, court costs, and postjudgment interest against
him. Tavarez did not participate in the hearing nor did he file any postjudgment motions. Tavarez timely
filed a notice of restricted appeal.
Discussion
A restricted appeal is available for the limited purpose of providing a party who did not
participate at trial with the opportunity to correct an erroneous judgment. In re E.K.N., 24 S.W.3d 586,
590 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2000, no pet.) (citing Tex. R. App. P. 30). The elements necessary to
directly attack a judgment by a restricted appeal are: (1) the appeal must be brought within six months after
the trial court signed the judgment; (2) by a party to the lawsuit; (3) who did not participate in the hearing
that resulted in the judgment complained of; (4) who did not timely file a postjudgment motion or request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law or a notice of appeal; and (5) the error complained of showing the
invalidity of the judgment must be apparent on the face of the record. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
2 Ann. ' 51.013 (West 1997); Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270
(Tex. 1997); DSC Fin. Corp. v. Moffitt, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1991); Tex. R. App. P. 30. In this case,
the only element at issue is whether error appears on the face of the record that would require reversal of
the default judgment. The face of the record, for purposes of a restricted appeal, consists of all the papers
on file in the appeal, including the reporter=s record from any hearings held related to the judgment.
Norman Communications, 955 S.W.2d at 270 (citing DSC Fin. Corp., 815 S.W.2d at 551).
Return of citation
Tavarez first contends that the default judgment cannot stand because the return of citation
is defective on its face. Specifically, Tavarez contends that the return of citation does not reflect the manner
in which he was served, and therefore, did not strictly comply with the rules governing a valid return of
citation.
A default judgment cannot withstand a direct attack by a defendant who shows that he was
not served in strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. Primate Constr., Inc. v.
Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994); Faggett v. Hargrove, 921 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Tex.
App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). In
contrast to the usual rule that all presumptions will be made in support of a judgment, there are no
presumptions of valid issuance, service, or return of citation when examining a default judgment. Faggett,
921 S.W.2d at 276 (citing Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885
(Tex. 1985)). Jurisdiction over the defendant must affirmatively appear by a showing of due service of
3 process, independent of recitals in the default judgment. Barker CATV Constr., Inc. v. Ampro, Inc., 989
S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, no writ).
Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the return of citation and provides
in pertinent part the following:
The return of the officer or authorized person executing the citation shall be endorsed on or attached to the same; it shall state when the citation was served and the manner of service and be signed by the officer officially or by the authorized person.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 107 (emphasis added). The return of citation is not a trivial or merely formalistic document.
See Primate Constr., Inc, 884 S.W.2d at 152. If any of the three requirements are not met, the return of
citation is fatally defective and will not support a default judgment under direct attack. See McGraw-Hill,
Inc. v. Futrell, 823 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied); Travieso v.
Travieso, 649 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1983, no writ).
The recitations in the return of citation are prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein.
Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152 (citing Pleasant Homes v. Allied Bank, 776 S.W.2d 153,
154 (Tex. 1989)). The recitations in the return of citation carry enough weight that they cannot be rebutted
by the uncorroborated proof of the moving party. Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. Further, a
return of citation does not cease to be prima facie evidence of the facts of service simply because the facts
are recited in a form rather than filled in by the process server. Id. It is the responsibility of the party
requesting service, not the process server, to see that service is properly accomplished. See id. (citing Tex.
R. Civ. P. 99(a)). This responsibility extends to seeing that the service is properly reflected in the record.
4 Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. If proper service is not affirmatively shown on the record, then
error exists on the face of the record and a default judgment cannot stand. Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
NO. 03-02-00118-CV
Reynaldo Tavarez, Appellant
v.
John Floyd Smith and Melissa Smith, Appellees
FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 01-383-C277, HONORABLE JOHN R. CARTER, JUDGE PRESIDING
Reynaldo Tavarez brings this restricted appeal after the district court rendered a no-answer
default judgment in favor of John and Melissa Smith and awarded them damages of $455,000. Tavarez
contends that error is apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the default judgment cannot stand
for two reasons. First, he contends that the return of citation is defective on its face because it failed to
reflect the manner in which Tavarez was served. Second, Tavarez contends that the damages awarded to
the Smiths are excessive and unsupported by the evidence. We affirm the district court=s judgment regarding
liability and unliquidated damages. We will reverse the liquidated damages award and render judgment that
John Smith take nothing on that claim. Background
On July 18, 2001, the Smiths commenced the underlying proceeding against Tavarez
alleging that Tavarez=s negligent acts caused his vehicle to collide with the Smiths= vehicle on April 4, 2001,
in Williamson County. John Smith claimed that he was injured as a result of Tavarez=s negligent acts and
Melissa Smith claimed loss of consortium as a result of Tavarez=s negligent acts. When Tavarez failed to file
an answer to the petition or otherwise appear in the lawsuit, the Smiths moved for a default judgment on
liability and requested a hearing before the court to establish the amount of their damages. On October 4,
2001, following a hearing on the Smiths= motion, the district court rendered a default judgment against
Tavarez and assessed liquidated and unliquidated damages, court costs, and postjudgment interest against
him. Tavarez did not participate in the hearing nor did he file any postjudgment motions. Tavarez timely
filed a notice of restricted appeal.
Discussion
A restricted appeal is available for the limited purpose of providing a party who did not
participate at trial with the opportunity to correct an erroneous judgment. In re E.K.N., 24 S.W.3d 586,
590 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 2000, no pet.) (citing Tex. R. App. P. 30). The elements necessary to
directly attack a judgment by a restricted appeal are: (1) the appeal must be brought within six months after
the trial court signed the judgment; (2) by a party to the lawsuit; (3) who did not participate in the hearing
that resulted in the judgment complained of; (4) who did not timely file a postjudgment motion or request for
findings of fact and conclusions of law or a notice of appeal; and (5) the error complained of showing the
invalidity of the judgment must be apparent on the face of the record. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
2 Ann. ' 51.013 (West 1997); Norman Communications v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270
(Tex. 1997); DSC Fin. Corp. v. Moffitt, 815 S.W.2d 551 (Tex. 1991); Tex. R. App. P. 30. In this case,
the only element at issue is whether error appears on the face of the record that would require reversal of
the default judgment. The face of the record, for purposes of a restricted appeal, consists of all the papers
on file in the appeal, including the reporter=s record from any hearings held related to the judgment.
Norman Communications, 955 S.W.2d at 270 (citing DSC Fin. Corp., 815 S.W.2d at 551).
Return of citation
Tavarez first contends that the default judgment cannot stand because the return of citation
is defective on its face. Specifically, Tavarez contends that the return of citation does not reflect the manner
in which he was served, and therefore, did not strictly comply with the rules governing a valid return of
citation.
A default judgment cannot withstand a direct attack by a defendant who shows that he was
not served in strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. Primate Constr., Inc. v.
Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994); Faggett v. Hargrove, 921 S.W.2d 274, 276 (Tex.
App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (citing Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990)). In
contrast to the usual rule that all presumptions will be made in support of a judgment, there are no
presumptions of valid issuance, service, or return of citation when examining a default judgment. Faggett,
921 S.W.2d at 276 (citing Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 690 S.W.2d 884, 885
(Tex. 1985)). Jurisdiction over the defendant must affirmatively appear by a showing of due service of
3 process, independent of recitals in the default judgment. Barker CATV Constr., Inc. v. Ampro, Inc., 989
S.W.2d 789, 792 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1999, no writ).
Rule 107 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure governs the return of citation and provides
in pertinent part the following:
The return of the officer or authorized person executing the citation shall be endorsed on or attached to the same; it shall state when the citation was served and the manner of service and be signed by the officer officially or by the authorized person.
Tex. R. Civ. P. 107 (emphasis added). The return of citation is not a trivial or merely formalistic document.
See Primate Constr., Inc, 884 S.W.2d at 152. If any of the three requirements are not met, the return of
citation is fatally defective and will not support a default judgment under direct attack. See McGraw-Hill,
Inc. v. Futrell, 823 S.W.2d 414, 416 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied); Travieso v.
Travieso, 649 S.W.2d 818, 820 (Tex. App.CSan Antonio 1983, no writ).
The recitations in the return of citation are prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein.
Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152 (citing Pleasant Homes v. Allied Bank, 776 S.W.2d 153,
154 (Tex. 1989)). The recitations in the return of citation carry enough weight that they cannot be rebutted
by the uncorroborated proof of the moving party. Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. Further, a
return of citation does not cease to be prima facie evidence of the facts of service simply because the facts
are recited in a form rather than filled in by the process server. Id. It is the responsibility of the party
requesting service, not the process server, to see that service is properly accomplished. See id. (citing Tex.
R. Civ. P. 99(a)). This responsibility extends to seeing that the service is properly reflected in the record.
4 Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. If proper service is not affirmatively shown on the record, then
error exists on the face of the record and a default judgment cannot stand. Id.
We set forth in its entirety the return of citation found in the Williamson County district
clerk=s record.
AUTHORIZED OFFICER=S RETURN
CASE #: 01383C277 COURT 277
Came to hand on the 30 day of July, 2001 at 10:00 o=clock A.M. Documents received for service:
CITATION AND PETITION AND REQUESTS FOR DISCLOSURE
Executed on the 31 day of July, 2001 at 1:51 o=clock P.M. Executed at Ward County Sheriff=s Office within the County of Ward by delivering to:
Tavarez, Reynaldo
a true copy of the documents listed above having first endorsed on the date of delivery in the following manner:
_____ by delivering to the above in person.
SUBSTITUTE SERVICE CAN ONLY BE MADE AFTER A COURT ORDER IS OBTAINED FROM THE
_____ (Substitute Service) per T.R.C.P. Rule 106 Order by delivering to:_____________ in person over the age of sixteen then residing therein, to wit: _____ by posting; by securely affixing to the main door at the above address, per T.R.C.P. Rule 106 Order.
DUE DILIGENCE ATTEMPTS
Date Time Reason for Non Service
___/___/___ ___:___am/pm ____________________________
5 ___/___/___ ___:___am/pm _____________________________
___/___/___ ___:___am/pm _____________________________ I, am over the age of eighteen, not a party to nor interested in the outcome of the above numbered suit and authorized to serve citations and other notices in my State.
/s/[signature of deputy]
Service Fee$ _____ Printed name: John Stessy, Deputy
Authorized Person / Constable / Sheriff
OR#/ID# 702
STATE OF ___________}
VERIFICATION
Before me a notary public, on this day personally appeared the above named authorized person known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing document and, being by me first duly sworn declared that the statements therein contained are true and correct. Given my hand and seal of office on this the _______ day of ______________, 2001.
________________________________ NOTARY PUBLIC SIGNATURE
Further, the return of citation was stamped ARECEIVED; date:7-30-2001; Time:____AM/PM; By: Liz;
Ward Co. Sheriffs Office.@ The return also reflects that the Williamson County district clerk stamped it
AFiled@ on September 4, 2001.
What the return reflects is that on July 31, 2001, at the Ward County Sheriff=s Office, the
deputy delivered the citation, petition and requests for disclosure to Reynaldo Tavarez. Appellant contends
that despite the fact that the return states that the deputy delivered the documents to Tavarez, the return is
nevertheless defective because the manner of service is not reflected.
6 To support his contention, Tavarez primarily relies upon two cases, one with a fact pattern
that involves substituted service and another that involves service of process on a defendant that is not a
natural person. See Faggett, 921 S.W.2d at 277; Curry Motor Freight, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co.,
565 S.W.2d 105, 106 (Tex. App.CAmarillo 1978, no writ). In Faggett, the trial court ordered substituted
service and ruled that the defendant could be served by leaving a copy of the citation and petition with
anyone over sixteen years of age at the defendant=s usual place of business, the Xerox Corporation, at 1614
Fannin, Houston, Texas 77002. Faggett, 921 S.W.2d at 277. The return of citation provided only that
Athe process was delivered to >Fong, Tran at 1614 defendant, in person.=@ Id. The Faggett court held that
this recitation in the return failed to state the manner of service used to serve the defendant, Faggett. The
Faggett court noted that, AWhile the word >delivering= technically shows a manner of service, the return
does not state that >Fong, Tran= was capable of accepting service; that is, nothing in the record indicated
that >Fong, Tran= was a person over sixteen years of age.@ Id. The Faggett court held that nothing in the
record reflected that proper substituted service was accomplished, therefore, the record failed to show the
manner in which the defendant Faggett was served. Id.
Tavarez also relies upon Curry Motor Freight in which the return of citation provided,
ACame to hand the 2 day of December 1976, at 9:00 o=clock a.m. and executed on the 2 day December,
1976, at 3:15 o=clock p.m. at Amarillo, in Potter County, Texas, by delivering to the within named
Garnishee Curry Motor Freight: by serving Mr. Fred Hall (vice-president) in person a true copy of this writ,
having first endorsed thereon the date of delivery.@ 565 S.W.2d at 106. Although on the return Avice-
president@ appears immediately following the mention of Mr. Hall, there was nothing on the return that
7 connected the defendant, Curry Motor Freight, and Hall. The Curry Motor Freight court ruled that the
return was defective because it failed to state the manner in which the unnatural person defendant, Curry
Motor Freight, was served. Id. at 107.
Here, the named defendant, Tavarez, is the person to whom the Ward County sheriff=s
deputy delivered the citation, the petition and the requests for disclosure. The return, in providing that the
deputy delivered the documents to Tavarez, reflected that delivery was the manner of service to the
defendant. Unlike the factual situations in Faggett and Curry Motor Freight, here, there was no need to
affirmatively show a connection to an unnatural person defendant or to affirmatively show that all aspects of
substituted service were met. The return of citation reflects that Tavarez personally received proper service
of process when the Ward County Sheriff=s deputy delivered the pertinent documents to him at the Ward
County Sheriff=s Office. We conclude that the return of citation properly reflects the manner of service of
process, that is delivery of the documents to Tavarez, the named defendant in the proceeding. Tavarez=s
first issue is overruled.
Damages
Tavarez also contends that the default judgment cannot stand because legally and factually
insufficient evidence supports the award of $55,000 as liquidated damages and $350,000 as unliquidated
damages to John Smith and the award of $50,000 as unliquidated damages to Melissa Smith. Because an
appellant bringing a restricted appeal is afforded the same scope of review as a regular appeal, that is,
review of the entire case, it necessarily follows that review includes legal and factual insufficiency claims.
Norman Communications, 955 S.W.2d at 270.
8 In reviewing a legal insufficiency claim, we consider all the evidence in the light most
favorable to the prevailing party, indulging every reasonable inference in that party=s favor. Associated
Indem. Co. v. CAT Contracting, Inc., 964 S.W.2d 276, 285-86 (Tex. 1998). If there is more than a
scintilla of evidence to support the findings, the no-evidence challenge cannot be sustained. Catalina v.
Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994). Evidence is thus legally sufficient when it rises to a level that
would enable reasonable and fair-minded people to differ in their conclusions. Mobile Oil Corp. v.
Ellender, 968 S.W.2d 917, 922 (Tex. 1998). In reviewing a factual sufficiency challenge, we examine all
the evidence and set aside the judgment only if it is so against the great weight and preponderance of the
evidence so as to be manifestly unjust. Cain v. Bain, 709 S.W.2d 175, 176 (Tex. 1986).
A no-answer default judgment operates as an admission of the material facts alleged in the
plaintiff=s petition, except for damages. Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex.
1992). When a default judgment is rendered against a defendant, if the plaintiff=s claim is liquidated and
proved by an instrument in writing, the damages shall be assessed by the court. Tex. R. Civ. P. 241. If the
cause of action alleged damages that are unliquidated, or not proved by an instrument in writing, the court
shall hear evidence about the damages. Tex. R. Civ. P. 243.
ALiquidated damages@ refers to damages for which the amount due can be calculated solely
from the instrument sued upon and the factual (not conclusory) allegations in the petition. See Kelley v.
Southwestern Bell Media, Inc., 745 S.W.2d 447, 448 (Tex. App.CHouston [1st Dist.] 1988, no writ).
The written instrument must be included in the record before the trial court. See Abcon Paving, Inc. v.
Crissup, 820 S.W.2d 951, 953 (Tex. App.CFort Worth 1991, no writ) (writing should be attached to
9 petition). If liquidated claims are inadequately described in the plaintiff=s petition, they are considered
unliquidated claims. Kelley, 745 S.W.2d at 448-49. Here, there were no written documents supporting a
claim for liquidated damages attached to the petition or located elsewhere in the record before the district
court. We hold that there is no evidence supporting the award of $55,000 as liquidated damages to John
Smith. Tavarez=s contention complaining of the liquidated damage award to John Smith is sustained. We
reverse the portion of the default judgment awarding $55,000 in liquidated damages to John Smith.
We next review the award of unliquidated damages to the Smiths. Claims for unliquidated
damages are claims for an uncertain or disputed amount and cannot be accurately calculated by referring to
the allegations in the petition and the attached written instrument. Holt Atherton Indus., Inc., 835 S.W.2d
at 83. When damages are unliquidated, the plaintiff must present evidence of the Acausal nexus@ between
the event sued upon and the plaintiff=s injuries. Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 732
(Tex. 1984). This is because when judgment is by default, a personal-injury defendant admits only that the
defendant caused the event that led to the suit, not that there exists a connection between the event and the
damages. Transport Concepts, Inc. v. Reeves, 748 S.W.2d 302, 305 (Tex. App.CDallas 1988, no writ).
The personal-injury plaintiff must both offer proof of damages and connect the damages sustained to the
defendant=s conduct. Id.
At the hearing, John Smith testified that as a result of the accident caused by Tavarez, he
incurred $53,000 in medical bills and suffered $2000 in property damage. He also testified that due to the
accident caused by Tavarez, he and his wife sustained pain and suffering damages. At the hearing, John
Smith also testified that the allegations in the petition regarding damages were true. The petition alleged that
10 due to the accident, he suffered mental anguish, physical pain and impairment, and in all reasonable
probability will suffer mental anguish and pain in the future. Additionally, the petition alleged that Melissa
Smith suffered damages that naturally and consequently flow from the unexpected injury to a spouse. The
petition alleged that due to John Smith=s injuries, pain and mental anguish and other effects of this accident,
he had a diminished ability to demonstrate his love and affection for Melissa Smith and for which she has
suffered a loss of the affection, solace, comfort, companionship, society, assistance, emotional support, love
and happiness necessary to a successful marriage. Nothing in the record refutes his testimony. John Smith=s
testimony established the causal nexus between the accident and the damages suffered by him and his wife.
Further, while it is true that no medical documentation was submitted to the court, John Smith=s testimony
constituted some evidence to support the award. See Transport Concepts, Inc., 748 S.W.2d at 305.
Tavarez=s contention complaining of the unliquidated damages awarded to the Smiths is overruled.
Conclusion
We affirm the district court=s judgment regarding liability and unliquidated damages.
Because we conclude that no evidence supports the district court=s award of liquidated damages to John
Smith, we reverse the portion of the judgment awarding John Smith $55,000 as liquidated damages and
render judgment that John Smith take nothing on the liquidated damages claim.
Mack Kidd, Justice
11 Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear
Affirmed in Part; Reversed and Rendered in Part
Filed: November 15, 2002
Do Not Publish