BEAUMONT – The Ninth Court of Appeals today affirmed a default judgment ruling in a lawsuit brought by Transpecto Transport against Coleman Ferguson.
In February 2014, Ferguson, acting as Ferguson Syngas, obtained a loan for $120,000 from Transpecto. When Ferguson failed to pay, Transpecto sued.
Court records show that Transpecto tried to serve Ferguson multiple times. In June 2018, Transpecto moved for a no-answer default judgment against Ferguson and Ferguson Syngas.
In November 2018, Judge Kent Walston, 58th District Court, granted Transpecto’s motion for default judgment, awarding Transpecto $150,006 in damages based on Transpecto’s claims alleging breach of contract and fraud.
On appeal, Ferguson argued that the allegations in Transpecto’s petition about where he resides and where Ferguson Syngas is chartered are false.
Unlike the allegations in Transpecto’s petition, Ferguson argues he resides in Oklahoma and supported his claim by noting that the certificate signed by the secretary of the state of Oklahoma shows that Ferguson Syngas is chartered in Oklahoma.
The Ninth Court found the certificate Ferguson relies upon to be extrinsic evidence, meaning the certificate is not evidence that is within the documents that consist of the face of the record.
“To boil it down, Ferguson asks that this Court rely on extrinsic evidence to reverse the default judgment from which he has appealed,” the opinion states. “But Ferguson needs extrinsic evidence to establish his claim that Transpecto failed to serve him at his last known address, and since he needs extrinsic evidence to prove his claims, ‘the appropriate remedy is by motion for new trial or by bill of review filed in the trial court so that the trial court has the opportunity to consider and weigh factual evidence.’ Nothing we decide today affects Ferguson’s right to pursue a claim alleging that he has a right to have the default judgment set aside by filing a bill of review.
“We hold Ferguson has not established that error exists on the face of the record. For that reason, we overrule the issues he raises in his brief and affirm the judgment rendered below.”
Case No. 09-19-00147-CV