Texas Divorce Attorney Blog
The Supreme Court of Texas has weighed in on the thorny question of when a default divorce judgment should be undone. In a recent case, a husband filed for divorce and sought to serve his wife with divorce papers. At the time, the wife was residing at her parents’ house with their child. After attempts at personal service were unsuccessful, the trial court authorized service by alternative means.
Despite the alternative service, the wife remained unaware that she had been served and did not file an answer. The trial court entered a default divorce decree, dividing the parties’ property.
Motion for New Trial
Before the decree became final, the wife appeared through counsel and moved for a new trial. She said she had become aware of the legal action only when she contacted an attorney to respond to her husband’s threats to take their child and dog, and had never received actual notice. At issue was also that the default judgment addressed property issues that should have been litigated, including reimbursement and characterization claims.
The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed.
The Legal Framework
Texas courts apply the Craddock test when deciding whether to set aside a default judgment. The moving party must show: (1) that the failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference; (2) that a meritorious defense exists, and (3) that granting a new trial would not cause undue delay or prejudice.
While the standard is well-established, the Texas Supreme Court emphasized that its application must remain equitable, particularly in divorce cases where the consequences of a judgment may be lasting and irreversible.
The Texas Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Court focused first on notice. It drew a critical distinction between knowing that a divorce has been filed and knowing that service has occurred, triggering a response deadline. Evidence supported the wife’s position that she expected personal service and was unaware that alternative service had been completed. That misunderstanding, the Court held, did not amount to conscious indifference.
The Court also concluded that the wife sufficiently “set up” a meritorious defense by identifying specific property claims that, if proven, could materially affect the outcome. At this stage, she was not required to prove those claims; she only had to show that they warranted a trial.
Finally, the Court rejected the argument that reopening the case would unfairly prejudice the husband. Having to litigate disputed property issues is not, by itself, a legal injury.
The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the appeals court’s judgment.
Contact McClure Law Group
This case reinforces Texas courts’ long-standing principles of fairness in divorce cases. The use of default judgments to “simplify” a divorce with complex issues and high-value assets isn’t appropriate, especially when it’s based on procedural missteps. If you believe your spouse is attempting to secure a default divorce judgment affecting significant assets without your knowledge, call McClure Law Group at (214)-692-8200 to set up a consultation.