From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Laredo Metro v. Martinez

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Sep 22, 2004
No. 04-03-00423-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 22, 2004)

Opinion

No. 04-03-00423-CV

Delivered and Filed: September 22, 2004.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Webb County, Texas, Trial Court No. 2002-Cvt-001437-C3, Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding.

Reversed and Remanded.

Sitting: Catherine STONE, Justice, Sarah B. DUNCAN, Justice, Phylis J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.


MEMORANDUM OPINION


This is a restricted appeal. The only contested element is whether error is apparent on the face of the record. See, e.g., Norman Communications. v. Texas Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (listing elements required for successful restricted appeal). Laredo Metro, Inc. argues it has met this element because the face of the record establishes that Lillian Martinez signed the green card accompanying service of process; but it does not establish that Martinez is Laredo Metro's president, vice-president, or registered agent. We agree. See, e.g., In re Vlasak, No. 04-04-00139-CV, 2004 WL 1336289, at *3 (Tex.App.-San Antonio June 16, 2004, orig. proceeding) (noting that, after trial court's plenary power has expired, defect in service must be reviewed by bill of review or restricted appeal); Carmona v. Bunzl Distrib., 76 S.W.3d 566, 568 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.) (holding that to uphold default judgment, record must affirmatively show an appearance by defendant, proper service of citation on defendant, or a written waiver of citation); Tex. Bus. Corp. Act Ann. art. 2.11 (Vernon 2003) (president, all vice-presidents, and registered agent are agents of corporation upon whom process may be served).

Martinez apparently concedes that the record does not establish proper service and instead argues that the "rule should not continue under Texas jurisprudence" "[b]ecause rigid application of the rules of strict compliance work an injury to Martinez." We are not at liberty, however, to disregard well-established Texas law. Martinez also argues that we should assume the "proper representatives" received "actual notice of the lawsuit" because we may take judicial notice that Laredo Metro is housed in a "relatively small" building "appraised [at] $192,910.00." But even if we were to accept Martinez's invitation to take judicial notice of the size of the building in which Laredo Metro is housed (an invitation we decline), it does not necessarily follow that the employee who signed the green card forwarded the process to Laredo Metro's president, vice-president, or registered agent.

Because Laredo Metro has met the requirements for a restricted appeal, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Summaries of

Laredo Metro v. Martinez

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio
Sep 22, 2004
No. 04-03-00423-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 22, 2004)
Case details for

Laredo Metro v. Martinez

Case Details

Full title:LAREDO METRO, INC., Appellant v. MARIA DIANA MARTINEZ, Appellee

Court:Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio

Date published: Sep 22, 2004

Citations

No. 04-03-00423-CV (Tex. App. Sep. 22, 2004)