Huffman Asset Management, LLC and Prairie Capital, LLC v. Maurice Colter and Ni-Ida Colter

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 24-0205
══════════

Huffman Asset Management, LLC and Prairie Capital, LLC,
Petitioners,

v.

Maurice Colter and Ni-Ida Colter,
Respondents

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════

Argued December 2, 2025

JUSTICE LEHRMANN delivered the opinion of the Court.

JUSTICE HUDDLE filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice
Devine, Justice Young, and Justice Sullivan joined.

This residential-lease dispute involves an appeal from a
no-answer default judgment based on defective service of process. The
plaintiffs sued two limited liability companies and sought substituted
service under a statute requiring the Secretary of State to mail process
to the most recent addresses of the entities on file with the Secretary.
As the record does not reflect that process was forwarded to the
statutorily required addresses, we reverse and remand to the trial court
for further proceedings.

I. Background

Maurice and Ni-Ida Colter entered into, and later renewed, an
apartment lease agreement with Prairie Capital, LLC. In August 2021,
the Colters sued Prairie and its property manager, Huffman Asset
Management, LLC (HAM), for damages stemming from an alleged roach
infestation.
Documents filed with the Secretary of State listed HAM’s
registered agent as Douglas J. Huffman and its registered office address
as 3121 Overlook Circle, Highland Village, Texas 75077. Prairie’s filings
listed its registered agent as Doug Huffman and its registered office
address as 8214 Westchester Drive, Suite 850, Dallas, Texas 75214. The
process server attempted service at those addresses. His efforts were
recorded as service attempts at “3121 Overlook Cir., Lewisville, TX
75077” (the wrong city) and “8214 Westchester Dr., Suite 850, Dallas,
TX 75225” (the wrong zip code).
The process server also attempted service at “4201 San Jacinto
St. #112, Dallas, Texas 75204,” the address “of owner’s representative
for notice purposes” provided on the signed lease. Three attempts at this
address were unsuccessful, as the server could not “access the
apartment building due to the building be[ing] secure.” The process
server then attempted service at “4211 San Jacinto St., Suite 112,
Dallas, Texas 75204,” explaining that “[t]his is the same apartment
complex as the previous address where service was attempted [4201 San

2
Jacinto], just the next building over.” Again, the server “was unable to
access the apartment building due to the building be[ing] secure.”
Believing that they had exercised reasonable diligence in trying
to serve the entities’ registered agent at their respective registered office
addresses, the Colters resorted to substituted service on the Secretary
of State. See TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 5.251(1)(B) (“The secretary of state
is an agent of an entity for purposes of service of process . . . if the entity
is a filing entity [and] . . . the registered agent of the entity cannot with
reasonable diligence be found at the registered office of the entity.”). On
October 25, 2021, the Colters delivered copies of the citation and petition
to the Secretary. The Colters also provided the Secretary with HAM’s
and Prairie’s registered office addresses for forwarding. The Secretary
issued Whitney certificates 1 approximately one month later, confirming
that it sent copies of the documents to the entities’ registered agent at
the Overlook Circle and Westchester Drive addresses and that both
mailings were returned, one with the notation “Forward Time Expired,
Return to Sender” and the other with the notation “Return to Sender,
Attempted Not Known, Unable to Forward.”
The Colters moved for entry of a no-answer default judgment,
submitting a certificate of last known mailing address for HAM and
Prairie. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 239a (amended 2023) (“At or immediately
prior to the time [a] default judgment is rendered, the party taking the

1 In Whitney v. L & L Realty Corp., we held that to support a default

judgment based on substituted service on the Secretary of State, the record
must contain a certificate from the Secretary showing that it forwarded a copy
of the citation to the defendant “as required by the statute.” 500 S.W.2d 94, 96
(Tex. 1973).

3
same or his attorney shall certify to the clerk in writing the last known
mailing address of the party against whom the judgment is
taken . . . .”). 2 The certificate, however, did not provide the entities’
registered office addresses. Rather, it listed the address on the
lease—“4201 San Jacinto, #112, Dallas, TX 75204”—as the last known
mailing address for both entities. The trial court signed a default
judgment against HAM and Prairie on April 25, 2022, and notice of the
judgment was sent to them at the San Jacinto address.
On May 25, HAM and Prairie moved for a new trial, complaining
that the notice of default judgment was their first notice of the lawsuit.
The trial court denied the motion for new trial, and the defendants
appealed.
The court of appeals reversed as to a portion of the damages
award but otherwise affirmed the judgment, holding that HAM and
Prairie were properly served. See 719 S.W.3d 308, 326 (Tex.
App.—Dallas 2023). The court first held that the Colters exercised
reasonable diligence in attempting to serve the entities, thus allowing
the Secretary to receive process on their behalf. See id. at 318. Then,
as confirmed by the Whitney certificates, the court of appeals held that
service of process on the Secretary was accomplished. See id. According
to the court, the Secretary forwarded the process “to the most recent
address of the entity on file,” which “necessarily means the most recent
address of the entity’s registered agent and registered office for service
of process.” Id. at 320 (citing TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 5.253). The court

2 The current version of the rule also requires certification of the
opposing party’s last known email address. TEX. R. CIV. P. 239a.

4
held that “the Whitney certificates constitute conclusive proof that the
Secretary of State, as agent of HAM and Prairie Capital, received service
of process . . . and forwarded the service of process as required by the
statute.” Id. at 321.
We granted HAM and Prairie’s petition for review.

II. Standard of Review

“In Texas, ‘no-answer default judgments are disfavored’ and
cannot be sustained absent meticulous adherence to service
requirements.” Shamrock Enters., LLC v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, 728
S.W.3d 693, 699 (Tex. 2026) (quoting Spanton v. Bellah, 612 S.W.3d 314,
316 (Tex. 2020)); see also Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex.
1990) (holding that a “default judgment cannot withstand direct attack
by a defendant who . . . was not served in strict compliance with
applicable requirements”). Thus, a no-answer default judgment
“generally must be set aside” if a defendant can show service of process
was invalid. Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., 186 S.W.3d
571, 574 (Tex. 2006). “Receiving suit papers or actual notice through a
procedure not authorized for service is treated the same as never
receiving them.” Id. at 574 n.1.
We review a trial court’s refusal to set aside a no-answer default
judgment for abuse of discretion. See Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott, 873
S.W.2d 381, 382 (Tex. 1994). Our review focuses on why the defendant
did not appear. See Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co., 186 S.W.3d at 573–74.
Because “[n]otice is ‘[a]n elementary and fundamental requirement of
due process,’” B. Gregg Price, P.C. v. Series 1 – Virage Master LP, 661
S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2023) (second alteration in original) (quoting

5
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)),
“those not properly served have no duty to act, diligently or otherwise,”
Ross v. Nat’l Ctr. for Emp. of the Disabled, 197 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex.
2006). “Proof of non-service” therefore “conclusively establishes lack of
fault or negligence in allowing a default judgment to be rendered,”
entitling the defaulting party to a new trial. Caldwell v. Barnes, 154
S.W.3d 93, 97 (Tex. 2004).

III. Analysis

In Texas, an entity is required to designate and maintain a
registered agent, with a registered office, “on whom may be served any
process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served on
the entity.” TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE §§ 5.201(a)–(b)(1), .206. If the
registered agent “cannot with reasonable diligence be found at the
registered office of the entity,” the Secretary of State is deemed an agent
of the entity for service of process. Id. § 5.251(1)(B). Service on the
Secretary is effected by delivering copies of the process, notice, or
demand to the Secretary with the required fee. Id. § 5.252. As an agent
receiving process on the entity’s behalf, the Secretary “immediately”
sends “one of the copies of the process, notice, or demand to the named
entity.” Id. § 5.253(a). “The notice must be addressed to the most recent
address of the entity on file with the secretary of state.” Id. § 5.253(b)(1).
It is the responsibility of the person seeking service of process to provide
the Secretary with “[t]he name and appropriate address of the person
being named as defendant.” 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 71.21(a).
HAM and Prairie raise three issues in this Court, asserting:
(1) the Colters were not entitled to substituted service because they

6
failed to exercise reasonable diligence in finding the registered agent of
the entities at the registered offices; (2) even if the Colters were entitled
to substituted service, the “most recent address of the entity on file” does
not mean the entity’s most recent registered office address; and (3) the
Colters were therefore required to provide HAM’s and Prairie’s principal
office addresses to the Secretary, rather than their registered office
addresses. Because HAM and Prairie are correct on the dispositive
second and third issues, we assume without deciding that the Colters
exercised reasonable diligence in attempting to serve the entities at
their registered office addresses pursuant to Business Organizations
Code Section 5.251.
“When substituted service on a statutory agent is allowed, the
designee is not an agent for serving but for receiving process on the
defendant’s behalf.” Campus Invs., Inc. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464, 466
(Tex. 2004). As an agent receiving process on an entity’s behalf, the
Secretary immediately sends notice to the named entity, addressed “to
the most recent address of the entity on file with the secretary of state.”
TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 5.253(b)(1).
As an initial matter, we address the court of appeals’ holding that
the Secretary’s Whitney certificates “conclusively establish[] that
process was [properly] served.” 719 S.W.3d at 318. This was error, as
“the Secretary of State’s certification establishes only the facts stated
therein.” Shamrock Enters., 728 S.W.3d at 697. In this case, the two
Whitney certificates document, and serve as conclusive proof, that
process was forwarded to the Overlook Circle and Westchester Drive
addresses. But they do not establish that those addresses are “the one[s]

7
the statute requires.” Id.; see also Wachovia Bank of Del., N.A. v.
Gilliam, 215 S.W.3d 848, 850 (Tex. 2007) (holding that even in the
context of a restricted appeal, we will not presume that process was
forwarded to the address “required by statute” barring a certification to
that effect).
The dispute thus hinges on whether the Overlook Circle address
was “the most recent address of [HAM] on file with the secretary of
state” and whether the Westchester Drive address was “the most recent
address of [Prairie] on file with the secretary of state.” TEX. BUS. ORGS.
CODE § 5.253(b)(1). HAM and Prairie contend that service was invalid
because the most recent address on file with the Secretary for both
entities was 4211 San Jacinto Street, #112, Dallas, Texas 75204. The
Colters, meanwhile, argue that HAM and Prairie were properly served
because the Secretary mailed process to the entities’ registered office
addresses, which the Colters assert are the most recent addresses on
file.
In construing the statutory service requirements, we first look to
the statute’s text and apply the common, ordinary meaning of those
words “unless the text supplies a different meaning or the common
meaning leads to absurd results.” Malouf v. State ex rels. Ellis, 694
S.W.3d 712, 718 (Tex. 2024) (quoting Tex. Health Presbyterian Hosp. of
Denton v. D.A., 569 S.W.3d 126, 131 (Tex. 2018)). A filing entity 3 may

3 A “filing entity” is “a domestic entity that is a corporation, limited

partnership, limited liability company, professional association, cooperative, or
real estate investment trust.” TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 1.002(22). A “foreign
filing entity” is an organization formed under or governed by the laws of

8
have multiple addresses “on file” with the Secretary. First, the entity
must “designate and continuously maintain” a registered agent and
registered office, TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 5.201, and changes to the
registered agent or office are effected by filing a statement of the change,
id. §§ 5.202–.203. Apart from designating a registered office address, a
filing entity is also required to file an annual Public Information Report
(PIR) with the Comptroller of Public Accounts, providing a mailing
address as well as the addresses of the entity’s principal office and
principal place of business. See TEX. TAX CODE § 171.203. The
Comptroller then forwards the report to the Secretary of State. See id.
§ 171.203(c). As a result, the address or addresses set forth in an entity’s
PIR are also “on file” with the Secretary. And for a newly formed entity,
the certificate of formation on file with the Secretary provides “the
initial mailing address of the filing entity.” TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE
§ 3.005(a)(6). The Secretary may also adopt additional “forms for a filing
instrument or a report authorized or required by this code to be filed
with the secretary of state.” Id. § 4.006. These filings, which can only
be “signed by a person authorized by this code to act on behalf of the
entity in regard to the filing instrument,” could also provide an address
of the entity. Id. § 4.001.
Simply stated, the most recent of these addresses is the “most
recent address of the entity on file with the secretary.” Id. § 5.253(b)(1).
The plain text of the statute does not distinguish between the addresses

another jurisdiction that is required to register with the Secretary to transact
business in Texas. Id. §§ 1.002(28)–(29), 9.001, .004(a), 4.001. Unless
otherwise noted, references to a filing entity also include a foreign filing entity.

9
on file, except to direct us to the most recently filed. To that end, the
most recent address on file with the Secretary could be the registered
office address, but that is not necessarily the case. In other instances,
the most recent address of the entity may be set forth in the annual PIR.
To the extent that the most recent document on file includes more than
one address—for example, a PIR that lists different addresses for the
entity’s principal office and principal place of business—both would
qualify as “the most recent address of the entity on file,” meaning
process must be sent to both. See TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.012(b)
(providing that, in construing statutes, “[t]he singular includes the
plural and the plural includes the singular”); Shamrock Enters., 728
S.W.3d at 702 (Blacklock, C.J., concurring) (stating that while “due
process demands neither exhaustive searches nor heroic measures,” it
does require additional reasonable steps that “one desirous of actually
informing the owner might reasonably try” (citation modified)).
The plain reading of the text aligns with Section 5.253(b)’s
statutory history, which “can help clarify what the law means.” Brown
v. City of Houston, 660 S.W.3d 749, 755 (Tex. 2023) (emphasis omitted);
see also TEX. GOV’T CODE § 311.023. Before the Legislature enacted the
Business Organizations Code, the Texas Limited Liability Company Act
required the Secretary, when executing substituted service of process on
an LLC, to forward copies to the company’s “registered office.” Act of
May 27, 1991, 72d Leg., R.S., ch. 901, § 46, art. 2.08(B), 1991 Tex. Gen.
Laws 3161, 3196, amended by Act of May 19, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S.,
ch. 182, § 9, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws 267, 596. In codifying Section 5.253(b),
the Legislature removed the term “registered office” and replaced it with

10
“the most recent address of the entity on file with the secretary of state.”
Act of May 19, 2003, 78th Leg., R.S., ch. 182, § 1, 2003 Tex. Gen. Laws
267, 344 (codified at TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE § 5.253(b)). As the
Legislature used different words, we “presume that [it] intended
different meanings.” Brown, 660 S.W.3d at 756.
“[T]he most recent address . . . on file” is plainly not synonymous
with the “registered office” address. Indeed, holding otherwise would
lead to incongruous results. For example, the Secretary is the agent of
process for foreign entities without a registered office and entities that
fail to maintain a registered agent in the state. See TEX. BUS. ORGS.
CODE § 5.251. If the “most recent address of the entity on file” means
nothing more than the entity’s registered office address, then the
Secretary could never send process to entities without a registered office
because no such office exists.
Moreover, the requirement that the Secretary forward process to
the “most recent address of the entity on file with the secretary,” rather
than the specific “registered office” address, comports with the broader
statutory scheme. Section 5.251 of the Business Organizations Code
sets forth two scenarios in which the Secretary may be considered an
agent of a domestic filing entity: when there is no registered agent to be
served because “the entity fails to appoint or does not maintain a
registered agent in this state”; and when the registered agent “cannot
with reasonable diligence be found at the registered office of the entity.”
Id. If Section 5.253 merely required the Secretary to send documents to
an address where there is no registered agent, or to the same address
where reasonable attempts at service have been unsuccessful, the notice

11
would not be “reasonably calculated, under the circumstances, to
apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them
the opportunity to present their objections.” Mitchell v. MAP Res., Inc.,
649 S.W.3d 180, 189 (Tex. 2022) (quoting Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr.,
Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84 (1988)). It stands to reason that more recent filings
may provide a more reliable address for an entity that failed to update
its registered office address. See, e.g., Wade v. Valdetaro, 696 S.W.3d
673, 675–76 (Tex. 2024). At the very least, a more recently filed address
is “not substantially less likely to bring home notice” than a registered
office address no longer occupied by the defendant. Mitchell, 649 S.W.3d
at 189.
Having discussed the meaning of Section 5.253(b), we now
consider the “most recent address[es]” of HAM and Prairie “on file with
the secretary” when the Colters attempted to effect substituted service
on October 25, 2021. We turn first to HAM. In 2010, HAM filed a
statement with the Secretary changing its registered office address to
the Overlook Circle address, which remained HAM’s registered office
address when suit was filed. However, the entity’s 2021 PIR, which was
on file with the Secretary when the Colters sought substituted service,
provides “4211 San Jacinto Ste. 112, Dallas, TX 75204” as HAM’s
mailing address as well as the address of its principal office and
principal place of business. Without a superseding address, the 2021
PIR furnishes the San Jacinto Street address as the “most recent
address of [HAM] on file.”
As to Prairie, the record contains the entity’s 2015 Certificate of
Formation providing the Westchester Drive address as the company’s

12
initial registered office. 4 The record does not reflect whether any other
documents providing a more recent address were “on file” with the
Secretary when the Colters sought substituted service. However, we
may take judicial notice of publicly available filings maintained by the
Secretary. See Tafel v. State, 536 S.W.3d 517, 523 (Tex. 2017) (“An
appellate court . . . may take judicial notice . . . of . . . facts that could
have been properly judicially noticed by the trial judge . . . .”); TEX. R.
EVID. 201(b)(2) (authorizing a trial court to take judicial notice of “a fact
that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately
and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably
be questioned”). Prairie’s PIR “on file” with the Secretary at the relevant
time states that the entity’s mailing address, as well as the address of
its principal office and principal place of business, was “4211 San Jacinto
Ste. 112, Dallas, TX 75204.” Thus, the San Jacinto address qualifies as
“the most recent address of the entity on file with the secretary,” and
process should have been sent to Prairie at this address. 5

* * *

4 The record also contains the Secretary’s certification, issued on
January 7, 2022, listing the Westchester Drive address as Prairie’s registered
office. The Colters attached the certificate to support their motion for entry of
default judgment.
5 The Colters’ first amended petition also alleges that “[a] filing with the

Secretary of State by Prairie Capital, LLC reflects that its principal office is
4211 San Jacinto, Suite 112, Dallas, TX 75024.” Prairie maintains that this
statement is proof that “the Colters knew that the 4211 San Jacinto address
was . . . Prairie Capital’s principal office address on file with the Secretary of
State.” The Colters do not dispute this fact.

13
The Court is increasingly skeptical of default judgments,
regardless of the precise legal issue under consideration or the
procedural posture in which the case arises. See, e.g., Tabakman v.
Tabakman, 728 S.W.3d 703, 709–10 (Tex. 2025) (holding that the trial
court abused its discretion in denying a motion for new trial following a
default judgment despite alternative service on the defendant); In re
Lakeside Resort JV, LLC, 689 S.W.3d 916, 922 (Tex. 2024) (explaining
that, in the context of default judgments only, finality is lacking
regardless of what the record shows if the judgment contains an
affirmative indication of nonfinality). Such wariness of default
judgments reflects the importance of adversarial presentation and
adjudication on the merits to the legitimacy of our legal system.
Lakeside Resort, 689 S.W.3d at 920–21.
Accordingly, an entry of default is “tolerable only because the
absent party could have appeared but chose not to do so.” Id. at 921.
That is not what happened here. Valid substituted service on an entity
under the Business Organizations Code requires forwarding “to the
most recent address on file with the secretary of state.” TEX. BUS. ORGS.
CODE § 5.253. Because neither HAM nor Prairie was served in that
manner, the default judgment against them cannot stand.

IV. Conclusion

As the record does not demonstrate strict compliance with the
substituted-service requirements, we hold that the trial court abused its
discretion in denying HAM and Prairie’s motion for new trial.

14
Accordingly, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and remand the
case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Debra H. Lehrmann
Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: May 29, 2026

15

Supreme Court of Texas
══════════
No. 24-0205
══════════

Huffman Asset Management, LLC and Prairie Capital, LLC,
Petitioners,

v.

Maurice Colter and Ni-Ida Colter,
Respondents

═══════════════════════════════════════
On Petition for Review from the
Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas
═══════════════════════════════════════

JUSTICE HUDDLE, joined by Justice Devine, Justice Young, and
Justice Sullivan, concurring.

This case requires grappling with Whitney certificates and
Section 5.253 of the Business Organizations Code, but its import reaches
beyond those particulars. It is one more data point illustrating that
default judgments rarely withstand appeal, and rightly so. I gladly join
the Court’s opinion in full. For practitioners and judges who have not
scoured the Court’s default-judgment opinions as a whole, I write
separately to append the following tl;dr.
The skepticism of default judgments evident in the Court’s
opinion today is not new. But it has become acute. Before the turn of
the century, the Court viewed default judgments “somewhat differently”
from appeals following a trial on the merits, in part because “an
adjudication on the merits is preferred.” Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v.
Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 86 (Tex. 1992). Fast-forward a few decades and
the Court is describing no-answer default judgments as “disfavored.”
Spanton v. Bellah, 612 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2020). By 2024, default
judgments were “greatly disfavor[ed]” and barely tolerable. In re
Lakeside Resort JV, LLC, 689 S.W.3d 916, 920–21 (Tex. 2024)
(discussing importance of adversarial presentation). Today they are
nearly verboten, particularly when the record hints at gamesmanship in
the face of reasonably available means of providing actual notice. See
Shamrock Enters., LLC v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, 728 S.W.3d 693,
702–03 (Tex. 2026) (Blacklock, C.J., concurring); Mitchell v. MAP Res.,
Inc., 649 S.W.3d 180, 190–91 (Tex. 2022).
The growing hostility toward default judgments unsurprisingly
has yielded consistent—usually unanimous—dispositions in this Court:
we have not affirmed a default judgment in more than two decades.1 As
the Court correctly highlights, ante at 14, this is true whether the

1 See Campus Invs., Inc. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464, 466 (Tex. 2004)

(affirming a default judgment because some evidence of the defendant’s
negligence supported the trial court’s denial of a bill of review). I recognize
that by denying a petition for review challenging a default judgment, we, in
effect, let the default judgment stand. But we have cautioned that “our denial
of a petition for review does not indicate our views on the merits of any
particular issue.” Samson Expl., LLC v. Bordages, 694 S.W.3d 195, 201 (Tex.
2024).

2
Court’s decision turns on the text of a statute governing service,2 a rule
of procedure,3 application of the Craddock test,4 or due process
principles.5

2 See Shamrock Enters., 728 S.W.3d at 700 (reversing because the
record did not demonstrate strict compliance with the requirements for
substituted service under Section 5.251 of the Business Organizations Code);
U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Moss, 644 S.W.3d 130, 137 (Tex. 2022) (reversing
because the plaintiff did not use the exclusive service methods for financial
institutions under Section 17.028 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code);
WWLC Inv., L.P. v. Miraki, 624 S.W.3d 796, 799–801 (Tex. 2021) (reversing
because the plaintiff failed to serve the correct agent as defined in Sections
5.201(b) and 5.255(2) of the Business Organizations Code).
3 See In re Marriage of Williams, 646 S.W.3d 542, 544 (Tex. 2022)
(reversing because the rules do not require a motion for new trial before raising
a legal-sufficiency challenge to a default judgment); Spanton, 612 S.W.3d at
317–18 (reversing because substituted service authorized under Rule 106 did
not strictly comply with the trial court’s order); Katy Venture, Ltd. v. Cremona
Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160, 163–65 (Tex. 2015) (reversing because the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 239a created a fact issue); PNS Stores,
Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 275–77 (Tex. 2012) (reversing because the
plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 239a constituted some evidence of
extrinsic fraud); Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254, 255–56
(Tex. 2009) (reversing because the return of citation lacked the time of service
as required by Rules 16 and 105); In re E.A., 287 S.W.3d 1, 5–6 (Tex. 2009)
(reversing because there was no evidence that the defendant was served with
an amended petition under Rule 21a or had constructive notice of it); Sells v.
Drott, 259 S.W.3d 156, 158–59 (Tex. 2008) (reversing because the rules of
procedure entitled the defendant to notice before the trial court struck her
answers and granted a default judgment); Kao Holdings, L.P. v. Young, 261
S.W.3d 60, 65 (Tex. 2008) (reversing because a default judgment was granted
against a nonparty in violation of Rules 239 and 301).
4 See Tabakman v. Tabakman, 728 S.W.3d 703, 708–11 (Tex. 2025)
(reversing because the defendant satisfied each Craddock element for a new
trial); In re Marriage of Sandoval, 619 S.W.3d 716, 722–23 (Tex. 2021)
(reversing because the lower courts erroneously excluded an affidavit that
supported the first Craddock element); Milestone Operating, Inc. v.
ExxonMobil Corp., 388 S.W.3d 307, 310 (Tex. 2012) (reversing because the
defendant’s uncontroverted excuse was sufficient to support the first Craddock

3
Yet as fervently as our opinions decry default judgments, the
reality is that the ones that reach this Court are the tip of the iceberg.
In this century, only thirty or so of this Court’s decisions have squarely
addressed whether a default judgment was proper. By contrast, Texas
courts render tens of thousands of default judgments each year. See
OFF. OF CT. ADMIN., ANNUAL STATISTICAL REPORT FOR THE TEXAS
JUDICIARY 167 (2024) (reporting that over 50,000 default judgments
were rendered in district and statutory county courts during fiscal year
2024). Even for a jurisdiction as busy and populous as ours, 50,000 in
one year is too many. Because our legal system’s legitimacy depends on
adversarial presentation and adjudication on the merits, every
practitioner and judge contemplating seeking or signing a default
judgment should exercise restraint. Default judgments must be used
only as a last resort, never as a strategy. See Hock v. Salaices, 982
S.W.2d 591, 593 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.) (“It is a basic
tenet of jurisprudence that the law abhors a default.”); see also E.F.
Hutton & Co. v. Moffatt, 460 F.2d 284, 285 (5th Cir. 1972) (“The entry of

element); Sutherland v. Spencer, 376 S.W.3d 752, 755–56 (Tex. 2012) (same);
Dolgencorp of Tex., Inc. v. Lerma, 288 S.W.3d 922, 926–29 (Tex. 2009)
(reversing because the defendant satisfied each Craddock element).
5 See Mitchell, 649 S.W.3d at 193 (reversing because service by
publication violated due process); In re E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552, 565–66 (Tex.
2012) (same); Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex.
2012) (reversing because the defendant had no notice of the trial setting or the
default judgment).

4
judgment by default is a drastic remedy and should be resorted to only
in extreme situations.”).

Rebeca A. Huddle
Justice

OPINION FILED: May 29, 2026

5