Background
Vivian Marie Wise sought a protective order against her former boyfriend, Thor Alan Foster, alleging physical abuse. Foster did not appear at the hearing, and the Harris County trial court entered a default judgment granting Wise a lifetime protective order.
Foster brought a restricted appeal. The parties agreed that he met the first three requirements for that procedure; the dispute was whether the face of the record showed an error in service or notice requiring reversal.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed. Although the record did not contain a separately titled notice of application for protective order, the citation served on Foster contained the required hearing information and warning of a possible default judgment. Its district-court seal, district clerk information, and typed deputy-clerk name satisfied the statutory requirement that the notice be signed by the clerk under seal.
The service return also facially showed personal delivery to Foster of the citation and application materials before the hearing. It did not matter whether he received the original or amended application because both sought the same relief; the amendment added evidence but did not seek a more onerous judgment. Other unsuccessful service efforts did not establish facial error, and an asserted discrepancy in the notary date did not affect jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- A citation may serve as the required notice of a protective-order application when its contents satisfy the statute.
- A typed deputy-clerk name may constitute a signature on a non-electronic citation.
- In a restricted appeal, claimed service defects must be apparent from the record itself, not inferred from surrounding circumstances.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the demanding facial-error standard for restricted appeals from default protective orders. A respondent challenging service must identify a defect shown by the record; ambiguity or doubts based on other filings will not undo a facially valid return.