Background
Julissa and Damian Rodriguez sued Quest Liner Inc. and an unidentified driver for damages arising from a motor vehicle collision. They alleged that the driver was negligent and sought to hold Quest Liner both vicariously and directly liable.
The Rodriguezes attempted to serve Quest Liner through its registered agent, Incorp Services, Inc. The return stated that a process server delivered the citation and petition at Incorp Services’ address to “Jason Casey for QUEST LINER, INC. through its Registered Agent, INCORP SERVICES, INC.” Quest Liner did not answer, and the trial court entered a default judgment for the Rodriguezes. Quest Liner then brought a restricted appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Court of Appeals held that error was apparent on the face of the record because the record did not affirmatively establish that Casey was authorized to accept service for Incorp Services. Although the return identified Incorp Services as Quest Liner’s registered agent, it did not identify Casey’s relationship with Incorp Services or otherwise state that he had authority to receive process on its behalf.
Strict compliance with the rules governing service must affirmatively appear in the record for a default judgment to survive a direct attack by restricted appeal. The court could not infer Casey’s authority merely because he accepted the documents at the registered agent’s office. It therefore reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- In a restricted appeal from a default judgment, valid service must affirmatively appear on the face of the record, and courts presume nothing in favor of service.
- When a corporation’s registered agent is itself an organization, the record must show that the natural person who received process was authorized to act for that registered agent.
- A return may contain the formal information required by the service rules yet remain insufficient if it does not establish the recipient’s authority to accept process.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the precision required when serving a corporation through a corporate registered agent. Identifying the person who physically received the papers and serving that person at the correct office are not enough unless the record also establishes that person’s authority to accept service.
For plaintiffs seeking default judgments, the opinion highlights the need to ensure that the return expressly documents the recipient’s capacity. For defendants, it confirms that an incomplete service record may support reversal through a restricted appeal even if the papers were delivered to the registered agent’s address.