HOUSTON - Yesterday, the First Court of Appeals reversed a default judgment award of more than $2 million in a lawsuit brought over an automobile collision.
According to the opinion, Crystal Shafer filed suit against Adalberto Barahona in September 2020, alleging that she had been a passenger in a truck driven by him “when, due to [his] negligence and gross negligence, the truck rolled over causing serious injuries to [her].”
A month later, Shafer filed a motion for substituted service under Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b), which the trial court granted and then voided three days later, leading the court to sign a new order. On Nov. 20, 2020, the process server filed a return of service.
One year later, on Nov. 11, 2021, Shafer filed a motion for default judgment, asserting that on Nov. 10, 2020, Barahona was “served via substitute service by firmly affixing a true copy of the citation, with a copy of the Petition and this Order authorizing substitute service . . . to the front door of [Barahona’s] last known usual place of abode.”
She asked the trial court to award her damages totaling $2,046,485.50, which the trial granted on Dec. 1, 2021. Six months later, on June 1, 2022, Barahona filed a notice of restricted appeal, the opinion states.
The First Court found that, given the record, Shafer failed to satisfy that responsibility, as “the record shows that the only valid order providing legal authorization for substituted service on November 10 was the order requiring service by mail.”
“We conclude that error appears on the face of the record because Rule 106’s requirements were not met,” the opinion states. “Shafer’s violation of Rule 106 made the service of process on Barahona invalid and of no effect. As a result, the trial court did not acquire personal jurisdiction over Barahona and erred in rendering a default judgment against him.
“We reverse the default judgment rendered by the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings.”
Appeals case No. 01-22-00416-CV