unliquidated claim in Texas

2024A. Applicable Law “Once a default judgment is taken on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages.” Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992).

2023P. 243 (“If the cause of action is unliquidated or be not proved by an instrument in writing, the court shall hear evidence as to damages and shall render judgment therefor . . .”); see also Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992) (“Once a default judgment is taken on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages, and a court rendering a default judgment must hear evidence of any such damages”); Sherman Acquisition II LP v. Garcia, 229 S.W.3d 802 , 808– 09 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (rec

2025A. Applicable Law As previously stated, “[i]t is well settled that once a default judgment is taken against a non-answering defendant on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages.” Tex. Commerce Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. 1999) (emphasis added).

2019“It is well settled that once a default judgment is taken against a non-answering defendant on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages.” Tex. Commerce Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515, 516 (Tex. 1999) (emphasis added).

2023See Muhr, 749 S.W.2d at 496 (“[A]s to default judgments, the non-answering party has ‘admitted’ the facts properly pleaded and the justice of the opponent’s claim.”); Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. 1984) (“[A] judgment taken by default on an unliquidated claim admits all allegations of fact set out in the petition, except the amount of damages. . . . if the facts set out in the petition allege a cause of action, a default judgment conclusively establishes the defendant’s liability.”); see also Herbert v. Greater Gulf Coast Enters., Inc., 915 S.W.2d 866, 872 (Tex. App.—

2022Texas follows the one- satisfaction rule, so when the plaintiff sues the defendant under multiple theories of liability, the plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery for the damages caused by a particular injury. 22 When a trial court grants a default judgment on an unliquidated claim, “all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages.” 23 So the “default judgment admits that the defendant’s conduct caused the event upon which the plaintiff’s suit is based.” 24 Damages are considered unliquidated when they are not proven by an instrument in

2021Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992); Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Tex. 1979). “[I]f the facts set out in the petition allege a cause of action, a default judgment conclusively establishes the defendant’s liability.” 40 Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. 1984).

2011Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex.1992); Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Tex.1979). "[I]f the facts set out in the petition allege a cause of action, a default judgment conclusively establishes the defendant's liability." Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex.1984).

2015“When a default judgment is taken against non-answering defendants on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact contained in the petition are deemed admitted, except for the amount of damages.” Argyle Mech., Inc. v. Unigus Steel, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (citing Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992); Arenivar v. Providian Nat’l Bank, 23 S.W.3d 496, 497 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, no 5 pet.)).

2008Arenivar v. Providian Nat'l Bank , 23 S.W.3d 496, 497-98 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 2000, no pet.), citing Tex. Commerce Bank, Nat'l.

2010“A trial court may award unliquidated damages based on affidavit testimony.” Ingram Indus., 121 S.W.3d at 37 (citing Tex. Commerce Bank v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515, 516-17 (Tex.1999)); see Sherman Acquisition II LP v. Garcia, 229 S.W.3d 802, 811 (Tex.App.-Waco 2007, no pet.) ("For an unliquidated claim, testimony of the total amount due is sufficient to support an award of damages, and the testimony may be supplied by affidavits.”) (citing New, 3 S.W.3d at 517 ; Barganier v. Saddlebrook Apartments, 104 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Tex.App.Waco 2003, no pet.); Irlbeck v. John Deere, Co., 714 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Tex.Ap

2010"A trial court may award unliquidated damages based on affidavit testimony." Ingram Indus. , 121 S.W.3d at 37 (citing Tex. Commerce Bank v. New , 3 S.W.3d 515, 516-17 (Tex. 1999)); see Sherman Acquisition II LP v. Garcia , 229 S.W.3d 802, 811 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007, no pet.) ("For an unliquidated claim, testimony of the total amount due is sufficient to support an award of damages, and the testimony may be supplied by affidavits.") (citing New , 3 S.W.3d at 517 ; Barganier v. Saddlebrook Apartments , 104 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, no pet.); Irlbeck v. John Deere, Co. , 714 S.W.2d 54,

2010“A trial court may award unliquidated damages based on affidavit testimony.” Ingram Indus., 121 S.W.3d at 37 (citing Tex. Commerce Bank v. New, 3 S.W.3d 515, 516-17 (Tex.1999)); see Sherman Acquisition II LP v. Garcia, 229 S.W.3d 802, 811 (Tex.App.-Waco 2007, no pet.) ("For an unliquidated claim, testimony of the total amount due is sufficient to support an award of damages, and the testimony may be supplied by affidavits.”) (citing New, 3 S.W.3d at 517 ; Barganier v. Saddlebrook Apartments, 104 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Tex.App.Waco 2003, no pet.); Irlbeck v. John Deere, Co., 714 S.W.2d 54, 57 (Tex.Ap

2010"A trial court may award unliquidated damages based on affidavit testimony." Ingram Indus. , 121 S.W.3d at 37 (citing Tex. Commerce Bank v. New , 3 S.W.3d 515, 516-17 (Tex. 1999)); see Sherman Acquisition II LP v. Garcia , 229 S.W.3d 802, 811 (Tex. App.-Waco 2007, no pet.) ("For an unliquidated claim, testimony of the total amount due is sufficient to support an award of damages, and the testimony may be supplied by affidavits.") (citing New , 3 S.W.3d at 517 ; Barganier v. Saddlebrook Apartments , 104 S.W.3d 171, 173 (Tex. App.-Waco 2003, no pet.); Irlbeck v. John Deere, Co. , 714 S.W.2d 54,

1994Siddiqui v. West Bellfort Property Owners Ass’n, 819 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1991, no writ); Sunbelt Tectonics, Inc. v. Ramirez, 742 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1987, no writ); First Nat’l Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 690-91 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1983, no writ).

1988Appellant argues that the additional damages are an unliquidated claim for which plaintiffs are required to present evidence, citing First National Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 689 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ).

2015“When a default judgment is taken against non-answering defendants on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact contained in the petition are deemed admitted, except for the amount of damages.” Argyle Mech., Inc. v. Unigus Steel, Inc., 156 S.W.3d 685, 687 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2005, no pet.) (citing Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992); Arenivar v. Providian Nat’l Bank, 23 S.W.3d 496, 497 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2000, no 5 pet.)).

2015“When damages are unliquidated, the judge entering the default judgment must hear evidence on the damages.” Argyle Mech., 156 S.W.3d at 687 (citing Tex. R.

2023P. 243 (“If the cause of action is unliquidated or be not proved by an instrument in writing, the court shall hear evidence as to damages and shall render judgment therefor . . .”); see also Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992) (“Once a default judgment is taken on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages, and a court rendering a default judgment must hear evidence of any such damages”); Sherman Acquisition II LP v. Garcia, 229 S.W.3d 802 , 808– 09 (Tex. App.—Waco 2007, no pet.) (rec

2015HN7 Once a default judgment is taken against a Contracts Law > ... > Damages > Types of Damages > non-answering defendant on an unliquidated claim, all Liquidated Damages Page 2 of 10 229 S.W.3d 802, *802 ; 2007 Tex. App. LEXIS 4793 , **1 Evidence > ... > Statements as Evidence > Hearsay > facts admitted may not be contradicted by evidence at General Overview the trial.

2025Heine, 835 S.W.2d at 83 ; Dawson v. Briggs, 107 S.W.3d 739, 748 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2013Heine, 835 S.W.2d at 83 ; Dawson v. Briggs, 107 S.W.3d 739, 748 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, no pet.).

2005Id. at 925 .

2005Article 21.28 included unliquidated or undetermined claims in its provisions for filing claims with a receiver, see Bailey, 838 S.W.2d at 924 (citing former art. 21-28, § 3(d), (e)), but the Act does not refer to unliquidated claims in its definition of “covered 4 We noted that article 21.28 (1) specifically allowed a third-party to file an unliquidated claim with a receiver; (2) allowed a receiver to pay such claims if the proof reasonably suggested that the third-party would be able to obtain a judgment against the insured; and (3) required the claimant to sue the receiver within three month

2003Stoner v. Thompson , 578 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Tex.1979); Jackson v. Biotectronics, Inc. , 937 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Tex. App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (op. on reh'g).

2003Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679, 684 (Tex. 1979); Jackson v. Biotectronics, Inc., 937 S.W.2d 38, 41 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1996, no writ) (op. on reh’g).

1998Although the rule initially states that hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law, the second sentence of the rule reads: “Inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection shall not be denied probative value merely because it is hearsay.” That the rule provides for hearsay admitted without objection to have probative value sufficient to support a judgment was forecast in Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 659 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex.1983), and has become a principle of law. [citations omitted] It seems accepted that at the hearing of evidence on an unliquidated claim after default

1998Although the rule initially states that hearsay is not admissible except as provided by law, the second sentence of the rule reads: "Inadmissible hearsay admitted without objection shall not be denied probative value merely because it is hearsay." That the rule provides for hearsay admitted without objection to have probative value sufficient to support a judgment was forecast in Aquamarine Associates v. Burton Shipyard, 659 S.W.2d 820, 822 (Tex.1983), and has become a principle of law. [citations omitted] It seems accepted that at the hearing of evidence on an unliquidated claim after default

1995See Siddiqui v. West Bellfort Property Owners Ass’n, 819 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex. App. — El Paso 1991, no writ).

1994Siddiqui v. West Bellfort Property Owners Ass’n, 819 S.W.2d 657, 659 (Tex.App. — El Paso 1991, no writ); Sunbelt Tectonics, Inc. v. Ramirez, 742 S.W.2d 771, 775 (Tex.App. — San Antonio 1987, no writ); First Nat’l Bank of Irving v. Shockley, 663 S.W.2d 685, 690-91 (Tex.App. — Corpus Christi 1983, no writ).

1994Rainwater v. Haddox, 544 S.W.2d 729, 733 (Tex.Civ.App.— Amarillo 1976, no writ).

1983Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis, 582 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Rainwater v. Haddox, 544 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1976, no writ); TEX.R.

1986Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis, 582 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex.Civ.App.—Beaumont), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 590 S.W.2d 119 (Tex.1979).

1983Illinois Employers Insurance Co. of Wausau v. Lewis, 582 S.W.2d 242, 246 (Tex.Civ.App.-Beaumont 1979, writ ref’d n.r.e.); Rainwater v. Haddox, 544 S.W.2d 729, 732 (Tex.Civ.App.-Amarillo 1976, no writ); TEX.R.

2015Initially, he charges admitted in court satisfies the evidential requirement of the trial court with error in rendering the judgment Rule 243, supra. K-Mart Apparel Fashions Corp. v. without an evidentiary hearing on the unliquidated claim Ramsey, 695 S.W.2d 243, 247 (Tex.App. -- Houston which was not proved by an instrument in writing. [1st Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

1986K-Mart Apparel Fashions Corp. v. Ramsey, supra. The unobjected to affidavit testimony of Holder supported the amount awarded on the notes in this cause.

1995The interest on the debt is held to be compensation for the delay in payment." 272 S.W.2d at 159-60 (citations omitted).

1995The interest on the debt is held to be compensation for the delay in payment.” 272 S.W.2d at 159-60 (citations omitted).

2024Paradigm Oil, Inc. v. Retamco Operating, Inc., 372 S.W.3d 177, 183 (Tex. 2012).

2023See Muhr, 749 S.W.2d at 496 (“[A]s to default judgments, the non-answering party has ‘admitted’ the facts properly pleaded and the justice of the opponent’s claim.”); Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. 1984) (“[A] judgment taken by default on an unliquidated claim admits all allegations of fact set out in the petition, except the amount of damages. . . . if the facts set out in the petition allege a cause of action, a default judgment conclusively establishes the defendant’s liability.”); see also Herbert v. Greater Gulf Coast Enters., Inc., 915 S.W.2d 866, 872 (Tex. App.—

2023See Muhr, 749 S.W.2d at 496 (“[A]s to default judgments, the non-answering party has ‘admitted’ the facts properly pleaded and the justice of the opponent’s claim.”); Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729, 731 (Tex. 1984) (“[A] judgment taken by default on an unliquidated claim admits all allegations of fact set out in the petition, except the amount of damages. . . . if the facts set out in the petition allege a cause of action, a default judgment conclusively establishes the defendant’s liability.”); see also Herbert v. Greater Gulf Coast Enters., Inc., 915 S.W.2d 866, 872 (Tex. App.—

2022Texas follows the one- satisfaction rule, so when the plaintiff sues the defendant under multiple theories of liability, the plaintiff is entitled to only one recovery for the damages caused by a particular injury. 22 When a trial court grants a default judgment on an unliquidated claim, “all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages.” 23 So the “default judgment admits that the defendant’s conduct caused the event upon which the plaintiff’s suit is based.” 24 Damages are considered unliquidated when they are not proven by an instrument in

2019See Dodd, 426 S.W.3d at 293 ; Silverado Truck & Diesel Repair, LLC v. Lawson, No. 05-18-00540-CV, 2019 WL 1467966 , at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas Apr. 3, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).

2015In Rose v. Rose, 117 S.W.3d 84, 91 (Tex. App.--Waco 2003, no pet.), the HN4 A default judgment on an unliquidated claim admits Waco Court of Appeals noted that HN2 Caprock all allegations of fact alleged in the petition except the followed the general rule that only an amended petition amount of damages.

2012Norman Commc’ns. v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). 5 “Once a default judgment is taken on an unliquidated claim, all allegations of fact set forth in the petition are deemed admitted, except the amount of damages.” Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992).