Background
Spillman Ranch Homes LP sued tenant Mischa Adorare for eviction, past-due rent, and attorney’s fees. After Adorare appealed the justice court’s judgment to county court, the county court scheduled a final hearing and later postponed it from July 16 to July 30, 2024. Adorare sought another continuance based on worsening medical problems, but the court proceeded on July 30 after she failed to appear.
The county court entered a post-answer default judgment evicting Adorare and awarding Spillman Homes $11,549.67 in past-due rent, $23,051.31 in trial attorney’s fees, and $22,500 in conditional appellate attorney’s fees. Adorare moved to set aside the judgment, asserting that a doctor had directed her to seek emergency treatment for a possible blood clot. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing at which neither side introduced evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Third Court of Appeals dismissed as moot Adorare’s challenge to the eviction portion of the judgment because she no longer occupied the premises, her lease had expired, and she had no arguable right to possession. Her challenges to the monetary awards remained live.
The court affirmed the denial of Adorare’s motion to set aside the default judgment because her timely motion did not satisfy the third element of the Craddock test: it did not allege that granting a new trial would cause no delay or other injury to Spillman Homes. Her later filing addressing that element was submitted more than 30 days after the final judgment, without leave of court, and could not cure the defective motion.
The court also rejected Adorare’s constitutional and statutory arguments. Her due-process and Fair Housing Act complaints were not preserved because her appellate arguments did not comport with those raised below. Assuming her equal-protection and Civil Rights Act complaints were preserved, the record did not show that the trial court denied her an opportunity afforded to similarly situated litigants; she could have presented evidence at the July 30 hearing and did not request a remote appearance, a further continuance based on the new circumstances, or another accommodation.
Key Takeaways
- A tenant’s appeal from an eviction order becomes moot when the tenant no longer possesses the property and has no arguable right to possession, although challenges to rent and attorney’s-fee awards may remain live.
- A motion to set aside a default judgment under Craddock must timely address all three elements, including alleging that a new trial will not delay or otherwise injure the plaintiff.
- An untimely supplemental filing made without leave of court cannot cure a timely motion for new trial that omitted a required Craddock allegation.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that even a defaulting party who offers a potentially compelling explanation for missing trial must satisfy every element of the Craddock test in a timely motion. Failure to include the threshold no-injury allegation can independently defeat relief without consideration of whether the absence was intentional or whether the defendant had a meritorious defense.
It also illustrates the separate treatment of possession and monetary relief in eviction appeals: loss of any arguable right to possession moots the eviction dispute but does not eliminate appellate review of surviving rent and attorney’s-fee awards.