Background
Whitestone Shops at Starwood, LLC sued Bionic Sport USA, Inc. and Carlos Sarmento in May 2025, alleging that Bionic Sport breached a commercial lease and Sarmento breached a guaranty agreement. Whitestone requested separate citations for Bionic Sport, through its registered agent, and for Sarmento individually.
An affidavit stated that the petition was hand-delivered to Bionic Sport through an agent for its current registered agent. Although citation was issued to Sarmento individually, the record showed that it was never served and contained no executed return of service for him.
Neither defendant answered, and the trial court entered a no-answer default judgment for Whitestone on July 3, 2025. Sarmento filed a restricted appeal on December 8, asserting that the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over him.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Court of Appeals held that Sarmento satisfied all four requirements for a restricted appeal: he was a party, did not participate in the proceedings or timely pursue post-judgment relief, filed his notice within six months, and demonstrated error apparent on the face of the record.
Because restricted appeals carry no presumption that citation was validly issued, served, and returned, the record had to affirmatively establish proper service. It did not. The unserved individual citation and absence of an executed return showed that Whitestone failed to effect valid service on Sarmento.
The trial court therefore never acquired personal jurisdiction over Sarmento, and the default judgment against him could not stand. The appellate court reversed that judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- A default judgment must be set aside in a restricted appeal when proper service is not affirmatively shown on the face of the record.
- Serving a corporation through its registered agent does not establish service on an individual defendant who is separately named in the lawsuit.
- Without valid service, a trial court lacks personal jurisdiction over the unserved defendant.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict service requirements governing no-answer default judgments in Texas. A plaintiff seeking judgment against multiple defendants must establish valid service on each defendant in the capacity in which that party was sued.
For parties pursuing restricted appeals, a record containing an unserved citation or lacking an executed return may establish facial error requiring reversal, without any presumption in favor of valid service.