The Letter and the Law Regarding No-Answer Defaults

Posted on December 2, 2008 by David Oliveros

Cleantech filed a suit on sworn account on July 10, 2007, against Eugene Owens.  On August 13, 2007, Mr. Owens handwrote and signed a letter to the court that stated "Please be advised I am employing an attorney for case number 07-1267-336."  Mr. Owens included his address on the letter, but he did not include a verfied affidavit as Tex. R. Civ. P. 93(10) requires.  Cleantech moved for a no-answer default judgment, which the court granted.

Did the handwritten and signed letter without the verified affidavit constitute an answer sufficient to defeat the no-answer default judgment?

According to the Dallas Court of Appeals, yes.

In Owens v. Sumola Investments, Inc., the court held that the letter was defective, but still constituted an answer sufficient to preclude a no-answer default judgment.  The Court did note that such a letter (without the verified affidavit) is ripe for summary judgment because it is prima facie evidence of a debt.  Nevertheless, Texas law indicates that "a letter from a pro se defendant to the district clerk that confirms receipt of the citation and provides the defendant's current address is sufficient to constitute an answer."  A copy of the court's opinion can be found at this link.

Tags: , , ,

Pro Se Letter Waived Special Appearance

Posted on November 4, 2008 by Byron Henry

The Dallas Court of Appeals held that a pro se letter from an Illinois resident denying liability and requesting an extension of time to retain counsel and file a "complete answer" waived the defendant's subsequent special appearance.  The defendant argued that the letter did not consitute an answer.  The court held that  the letter constituted an answer.  Because an answer constitutes a general appearance, the court held the defendant waived any challenge to the trial court's personal jurisdiction.  The court's opinion in Triad Realty Servs., Ltd. v. Green can be found at this link.

Tags: , , , ,