Deja vu all over again? Different name leads to reversal by restricted appeal
The Dallas Court of Appeals recently held that a default judgment containing a slightly different name than that contained in the citation constitutes error on the face of the record sufficient to justify reversal on restricted appeal. In this appeal, the court was faced with a citation and return of service for "Rone Engineers, Ltd." and a deafult judgment against "Rone Engineering Service, Ltd." The court stated that [t]he problem in this case is that the name of the defendant identified in the default judgment is different that the name of the defendant identified on the return if service." The court of appeals also rejected appellee's argument that this was a case of misnomer. The court has consistently required "strict compliance with the rules governing service of process." As this case, and my prior post on this subject indicate, when the Dallas court says strict, it means it. The court's opinion in Rone Engineering Service, Ltd. v. Culberson can be found at this link.
