The Dallas Court of Appeals has, once again, confirmed that "strict compliance" with rules governing service of process is required. See my prior posts on the subject here and here. In this case, the district clerk served an out-of-state defendant via certified mail, return receipt requested. But while the return of service bore the district clerk’s stamp
Final Judgments: Be Careful What You Ask For
Sometimes when a party gets a default judgment against another party, there’s a rush to make the judgment final. But as American Express Centurion Bank and American Express Bank found out in In re Daredia, you’ve got to be careful about what you ask for because there are consequences.
In the trial court, the…
Dallas DWOP Redux
In the wake of the Dallas Court of Appeals’ en banc decision last week in Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. v. Loring, there’s a handful of other opinions addressing dismissals for want of prosecution using the same "aggressive docket management" procedures as in Crown. …
Dallas Court Reviews “Aggressive Docket Administration”
The end of the courts of appeals’ fiscal year is upon us and as a result we are seeing a stream of opinions. One recent opinion that was of particular note is Crown Asset Management, L.L.C. v. Loring. It is noteworthy for at least two reasons: (1) it was issued by the Dallas Court of Appeals sitting en banc–a rare occurrence, and (2) its holdings are surprising, if not controversial–controversial enough to draw a three-justice dissent, another rarity This case may merit watching in the event it proceeds further. Because of its importance, all three of Reverse & Render’s bloggers have decided to review this case en banc, and therefore join the following summary.
Bottom line, the Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing a case for want of prosecution four months after it was filed while the plaintiff was actively attempting to secure a default judgment. Readers may want to read the majority and dissenting opinions for themselves. We summarize and briefly discuss the three holdings below.…
Continue Reading Dallas Court Reviews “Aggressive Docket Administration”
Waiver of Special Appearances in Default Challenges
The San Antonio Court of Appeals has held that a party challenging a default judgment may well risk losing the opportunity to challenge the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him unless special precautions are taken.
In Boyd v. Kobierowski, Kobierowski, a Texas resident, sued Boyd, a California resident, in Texas for breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation and DTPA violations. All causes of action arose from the sale of a vehicle Boyd sold to Kobierowski.
Boyd did not answer the suit and Kobierowski took a default judgment against Boyd. Boyd subsequently filed a restricted appeal to challenge the default judgment. He prevailed on appeal because of a defect in personal service. See Appeal No. 04-06-0041-CV.
On remand, Kobierowski repeatedly tried to get Boyd to answer the suit, but Boyd did not respond. Kobierowski then took a second default judgment. Boyd subsequently filed a special appearance and a motion for new trial subject to the special appearance. The trial court denied the special appearance, but granted the motion for new trial. In a second (interlocutory) appeal, Boyd argued that it was error to deny his special appearance.…
Continue Reading Waiver of Special Appearances in Default Challenges
The Letter and the Law Regarding No-Answer Defaults
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…