HOUSTON – The 14th Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s ruling against Worldwide Autotainment Inc., ruling the lawsuit was not served properly.
In the ruling on Jan. 31, Justice Meagan Hassan said there is "error on the face of the record requiring reversal" of the 190th District Court of Harris County's default judgment ruling.
According to the opinion, John Matthew Galloway sued Worldwide over allegations of breach of contract and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act on Oct. 14, 2016.
In his original petition, Galloway alleged that Worldwide failed to properly perform work on his truck, “resulting in catastrophic damage to his truck,” the opinion stated.
“Galloway stated that Worldwide could be served through its agent, CSC, at 211 E. Seventh St., Suite 620, Austin, Texas,” the opinion stated.
Hassan said Galloway’s civil process request shows he requested that service be issued to Worldwide by serving CSC by certified mail.
"The Harris County District Clerk issued a citation on Oct. 15, 2016, which was directed to Worldwide through its agent CSC at the Austin address provided by Galloway," according to the opinion.
“The bottom of the citation contained a return of service, which was to be completed by the deputy clerk to whom it was issued,” the opinion stated. “The return contained lines on which the deputy clerk was to state the name of the person served by certified mail, return receipt requested; the date and time of service; and the address at which service was completed.”
The return also included alternative blanks to be filled out if service was not completed to state the reason for why service was not completed, according to the opinion.
“However, the only return contained in the record before us is completely blank,” the opinion stated.
According to the opinion, Worldwide argued that “the trial court erroneously granted the default judgment because Galloway did not strictly comply with the rules governing service of citation when the return of service was neither completed nor signed by an officer or authorized person as required by Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107.”
Hassan said failure to affirmatively show strict compliance with the rules regarding issuance, service, and return of service renders the attempted service invalid.
According to the opinion, “strict compliance” means "literal compliance with the rules governing issuance, service and return of citation."
“Thus, this court has held that failure to sign the return of service renders the return fatally defective and will not support a default judgment on direct attack,” Hassan wrote. “'This is true even when a postal return receipt is included in the record.'”
The opinion states the only return of service in the record in this case is neither signed nor completed by a deputy clerk or officer of the district clerk’s office.
“The return is, in fact, completely blank and there is no evidence in the record that Galloway attempted to meet the requirements for a return of service set out in Rule 107,” Hassan wrote.
According to the opinion, the deficiencies “render the return fatally defective and require reversal of the default judgment and remand to the trial court.”