Background
In July 2024, the City of El Paso sued to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes on real property in El Paso County, filing its petition against “David Gonzalez (In Rem Only),” “Ann Gonzalez (In Rem Only),” and “Daniel J. Gonzalez (In Rem Only)” — each spelling the surname with a “z.” The actual property owners were David and Ann Gonzales, spelled with an “s.” Process was issued under the misspelled names. The total delinquent taxes sought were $8,031.70 for 2023, later amended to $16,980.20 for 2023 and 2024.
In September 2025, the Gonzaleses filed a special appearance and plea to the jurisdiction under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a, arguing that the name misspelling rendered service invalid and deprived the trial court of personal jurisdiction over them. On the same day, the City filed an amended petition correcting the spelling. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the special appearance. The Gonzaleses brought this interlocutory appeal under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 51.014(a)(7).
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth Court of Appeals affirmed the denial in an opinion by Justice Palafox, resting on two independent grounds. First, the court held that a special appearance under Rule 120a is available only to nonresidents of Texas who challenge the court’s personal jurisdiction over their person or property. Texas courts are courts of general jurisdiction that presumptively have personal jurisdiction over Texas residents. The Gonzaleses conceded they were Texas residents and were subject to an Arizona address in the City’s petition. Because Texas courts automatically have personal jurisdiction over Texas residents, the Gonzaleses had no basis to file a special appearance — regardless of any service defect.
Second, even if their special appearance had been procedurally available, the Gonzaleses challenged the wrong thing. A misspelled surname in a petition and citation is a curable service-of-process defect, not a true jurisdictional defect. Under Kawasaki Steel Corp. v. Middleton, 699 S.W.2d 199 (Tex. 1985), a curable defect in service does not affect a defendant’s amenability to process; it merely entitles the defendant to more time to answer. The correct procedural vehicle to challenge such a defect is a motion to quash under Rule 120 — not a jurisdictional challenge like a special appearance. The Gonzaleses’ reliance on Avila v. Avila and Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co. was misplaced; both of those decisions involved strict-compliance challenges in the context of default judgments, not pre-judgment challenges to personal jurisdiction. No default judgment had been entered here.
Finally, the court held that by filing a special appearance that in substance attacked only the service of process, the Gonzaleses made a general appearance that cured the very defect they were complaining about. A purported special appearance challenging only service — not the court’s power to exercise jurisdiction over the defendant — is not a true special appearance under Rule 120a and instead operates as a submission to the court’s jurisdiction. See Raymond Corp. v. Rubio, 658 S.W.3d 740 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. denied).
Key Takeaways
- Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 120a special appearances are available only to nonresidents challenging personal jurisdiction. Texas residents cannot file a special appearance regardless of any service defect, because Texas courts presumptively have personal jurisdiction over all Texas residents.
- A misspelled defendant name in a petition and citation is a curable service-of-process defect — not a jurisdictional defect — and must be challenged by a motion to quash under Rule 120, not a special appearance under Rule 120a. The remedy for defective service is more time to answer, not dismissal of the suit.
- The strict-compliance standard for service (required before entry of a default judgment) is distinct from the right to challenge service before judgment. Defendants may not invoke the default-judgment strict-compliance standard to seek dismissal of a case where no default has been entered.
- A special appearance that challenges only the propriety of service of process — not the court’s jurisdictional power — constitutes a general appearance under Kawasaki Steel and cures any service defect.
Why It Matters
Minor name variations — misspellings, transliterations, and alternate spellings — are common in Texas tax rolls, government records, and litigation. This opinion clarifies the procedural framework when those discrepancies appear in litigation. Texas-resident defendants cannot escape a lawsuit through a special appearance based on a service error; their amenability to Texas courts is not in doubt, and the special-appearance mechanism does not reach them. Defense counsel who files a special appearance solely to attack service — without asserting that the defendant is actually beyond the state’s jurisdictional reach — risks making a general appearance and waiving the very protection they sought to assert.
For in-house counsel and practitioners handling ad valorem tax collection matters, municipal litigation, or any suit where defendants are Texas residents, this decision underscores that service defects should be challenged by motion to quash. Filing the right motion matters: a motion to quash obtains more time to answer and preserves the record; a misdesignated special appearance may instead be treated as a submission to jurisdiction. Property owners facing government collection suits should engage counsel promptly to avoid confusion between these distinct procedural vehicles.