This case involves an appeal from a default judgment granted in a trespass to try title lawsuit. We hold that the petitioner sufficiently answered the respondent's service of citation and therefore deserved notice of any subsequent proceedings, including the default judgment hearing. Thus, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand this cause for a trial on the merits.

On March 31, 1989, Rae Lippmann sued Gilbert Smith in a trespass to try title action regarding 28 acres in Liberty County. Mr. Smith received service of citation on April 20, 1989. On April 26, he mailed a letter to the district clerk stating that he had received the citation. The clerk received and filed the letter on April 28. Mr. Smith's letter read as follows:

This correspondence certifies that I (Gilbert Smith) have received and signed for the citation for case number 43,846, Rae Lippmann v. Gilbert Smith, issued by the Honorable District Court 75th Judicial District of Libert (sic) County, Texas at the Court House of said County in Liberty, Texas on the 31st day of March of 1989.

Mr. Smith signed the letter and noted his current mailing address immediately below his signature.

On February 13, 1990, Mrs. Lippmann filed a motion for default judgment. Without notice to Mr. Smith, the trial court heard the motion on June 11, 1990, and granted Mrs. Lippmann a default judgment, awarding her title and possession of the land plus damages. The trial court subsequently denied Mr. Smith's motion for new trial, ruling that he failed to appear because of conscious indifference and that he presented no meritorious defense.

Although Mr. Smith's letter was not in the "standard form" of an answer, it nevertheless gave the court a timely response acknowledging receipt and acceptance of Mrs. Lippmann's citation and petition. See Santex Roofing Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Venture Steel, Inc., 737 S.W.2d 55, 56-57 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1987, no writ) ("Texas courts have always been reluctant to uphold a default judgment without notice where some response from the defendant is found in the record"). We conclude that a defendant, who timely files a pro se answer by a signed letter that identifies the parties, the case, and the defendant's current address, has sufficiently appeared by answer and deserves notice of any subsequent proceedings in the case. Accord Terehkov v. Cruz, 648 S.W.2d 441, 442 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1983, no writ) (signed letters to clerk timely acknowledging receipt of citation sufficed as "pro se answer" to prevent default judgment). Since Mr. Smith timely filed a written answer, he was entitled to at least ten days notice of the default judgment hearing. See TEX.R.CIV.P. 245.

Rule 245 was amended in 1991 and now requires at least a 45 day notice to the parties before trial.

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 170, we grant petitioner's application for writ of error and without hearing oral argument, a majority of the court reverses the court of appeals' judgment and remands this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Summaries of

Smith v. Lippmann

Supreme Court of Texas

Apr 22, 1992

826 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1992)

holding that a pro se defendant sufficiently appeared by answer even though the answer was not in "standard form"

Summary of this case from Sells v. Drott

holding that the documents appellant filed with the court constituted an answer and the appellant was therefore entitled to "at least" the full period of notice under Rule 245

Summary of this case from Morales v. Marquis

holding that a pro se letter identifying the parties, the case, and the defendant's current address, is sufficient to constitute an appearance

Summary of this case from Plant ex rel. Gravitt v. Cleveland Reg'l Med. Ctr. (In re Gravitt)

holding letter to court constituted an answer

Summary of this case from Christus v. Ragsdale

holding timely-filed pro se letter from defendant identifying parties, case, and defendant's current address was sufficient answer to defeat default judgment

Summary of this case from HAMILTON v. SEC ST. BK

holding that a timely filed pro se letter from the defendant identifying parties, case, and defendant's current address was a sufficient answer to defeat default judgment

Summary of this case from In re K.B.A

holding that defendant's pro se response that was signed, identified parties and case, and provided current address was sufficient answer requiring notice of default hearing

Summary of this case from Padrino Maritime, Inc. v. Rizo

concluding defendant who timely files answer "deserves notice of any subsequent proceedings in the case"

Summary of this case from Tunad Enters., Inc. v. Palma

concluding that letter amounted to a timely filed answer because it was signed by defendant, identified parties and case, included defendant's address, and acknowledged receipt of the citation and petition

Summary of this case from Granade v. Granade

rejecting a technical definition or test for what constitutes an answer

Summary of this case from Triad Rlty. v. Green

recognizing that defendant's response, though not in standard form, provided the trial court with "a timely response acknowledging receipt and acceptance of [plaintiff]'s citation and petition" and, thus, entitled defendant to proper notice of hearing per Rule 245

Summary of this case from A&A Constr. Servs., LLC v. Blevins

In Lippman, the Texas Supreme Court addressed what qualifies as a proper answer by a pro se defendant in relation to the entry of a default judgment.

Summary of this case from In re J.D.

In Lippmann, the Texas Supreme Court found that a pro se signed letter mailed to the district clerk by Smith "acknowledging receipt and acceptance of... citation and petition" was sufficient to be considered an answer.

Summary of this case from In re T.M.E.

stating that pro se defendant's letter was not in the standard form of an answer but "nevertheless gave the court a timely response acknowledging receipt and acceptance of [plaintiff's] citation and petition"

Summary of this case from Bivens v. First United Bank & Tr.

In Smith v. Lippmann, 826 S.W.2d 137, 138 (Tex. 1992), the court held that a letter filed by the defendant was an answer — even though it was not in the standard form of an answer — because it identified the parties, the case, and the defendant's current address.

Summary of this case from Ibrahim v. Young

In Lippmann, Smith sent the district clerk a letter stating he had received the citation, but did not file a formal answer.

Summary of this case from Stewart v. C.L. Trammell Prop.

In Smith v. Lippman, 826 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. 1992), the court found that a pro se defendant who sent a signed letter that gave the court a timely response acknowledging receipt and acceptance of the plaintiff's citation and petition, and that identified the parties, the case, and the defendant's current address, had sufficiently appeared by answer and deserved notice of any subsequent proceedings in the case.

Summary of this case from Harris v. Harris

Smith v. Lippmann

Summary

Opinion

Smith v. Lippmann

Smith v. Lippmann

Case Details

Citations

Citing Cases

Smith v. Lippmann

Summary

Opinion

Smith v. Lippmann

Smith v. Lippmann

Case Details

CitationsCopy Citation

Citing Cases

Citations