Background
Tysheika Simmons alleged that she contracted with AM Lube Auto Care to install a new engine in her 2014 Chevrolet Camaro but received a remanufactured engine instead. AM Lube maintained that a new engine was unavailable and that Simmons authorized the remanufactured engine. Simmons paid AM Lube $13,090.27 for the installation.
After AM Lube failed to appear for trial, the justice court entered a $13,090 default judgment for Simmons. AM Lube appealed for a trial de novo in county court but again failed to appear, and the county court entered the same amount of damages. AM Lube sought to set aside the judgment, asserting that its owner had traveled because of a family medical emergency and stating generally that it had a valid defense. Its motion for new trial was overruled by operation of law after a hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The First Court of Appeals affirmed. Under the Texas Supreme Court’s Craddock standard, a party seeking to set aside a default judgment must establish, among other things, a meritorious defense supported by alleged facts and affidavits or other prima facie evidence. A bare assertion that a valid defense exists is insufficient.
AM Lube’s motion said only that it had a valid defense and wanted to present invoices, photographs, and written communications. It neither alleged facts constituting a defense nor attached evidence supporting one. Its attachments addressed only why its owner missed trial, not whether AM Lube had a defense to Simmons’s contract claim. Because failure to establish any one Craddock element was dispositive, the court did not address the remaining elements.
The court also rejected AM Lube’s due-process argument. The record showed that the county court held a hearing on the motion and that AM Lube’s owner appeared, while the motion itself presented no facts or evidence of a meritorious defense for the county court to consider.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking relief from a Texas default judgment must satisfy every element of the Craddock test.
- Merely claiming to have a valid defense or promising to present supporting documents does not set up a meritorious defense.
- Evidence explaining a failure to appear does not also establish a defense to the plaintiff’s underlying claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a motion to set aside a default judgment must address each Craddock element with specific allegations and appropriate support. Even a compelling explanation for missing trial cannot secure a new trial when the movant fails to provide prima facie evidence of a legally viable defense.