setting or dispositive hearing in Texas

2025It is difficult to ascertain whether Appellant’s motions are in response to what Appellee refers to as the “June 23, 2025[] Custody Modification” or the “June 25, 2026[] Custody Enforcement.” However, we need not decide that question, as the record reflects neither service by citation of the motion to modify nor service of the notice of the hearing. 13 Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796, 801 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, pet. denied); see also Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. 2012) (“Entry of a post-answer default judgment against a defendant w

2024Similarly, entry of judgment against a defendant who “did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Mabon, 369 S.W.3d at 813 .

2015When a party has previously appeared an “[e]ntry of a post-answer default judgment against a defendant who did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” Mabon Ltd. v. Afri- Carib Enterprises, Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. 2012) (citing LBL Oil, 777 S.W.2d at 390–91).

2012Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84 , 108 S. Ct. 896, 899 (1988) (stating that failure to give notice of proceeding that will be accorded finality is violation of due process); Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., No. 09- 0715, 2012 WL 539385, at *4 (Tex. Feb. 17, 2012) (per curiam) (“Entry of a post- answer default judgment against a defendant who did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”); see also LBL Oil Co. v. Int’l Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 , 390–91 (Tex. 19

2025It is difficult to ascertain whether Appellant’s motions are in response to what Appellee refers to as the “June 23, 2025[] Custody Modification” or the “June 25, 2026[] Custody Enforcement.” However, we need not decide that question, as the record reflects neither service by citation of the motion to modify nor service of the notice of the hearing. 13 Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796, 801 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, pet. denied); see also Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. 2012) (“Entry of a post-answer default judgment against a defendant w

2024This is because “[a] defendant who does not receive notice of a default judgment proceeding is deprived of due process.” Coastal Banc SSB v. Helle, 48 S.W.3d 796, 801 (Tex. App.— Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2001, pet. denied); see Mabon, 369 S.W.3d at 813 (“Entry of a post-answer default judgment against a defendant who did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”). 5 It is also a denial of due process and an abuse of discretion for a trial court to convert a pretrial hearin

2020Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84 (1988)); Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 813 (Tex. 2012) (per curiam) (“Entry of a post-answer default judgment against a defendant who did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”).

2012Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84 , 108 S. Ct. 896, 899 (1988) (stating that failure to give notice of proceeding that will be accorded finality is violation of due process); Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., No. 09- 0715, 2012 WL 539385, at *4 (Tex. Feb. 17, 2012) (per curiam) (“Entry of a post- answer default judgment against a defendant who did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”); see also LBL Oil Co. v. Int’l Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 , 390–91 (Tex. 19

2024See Murphree v. Ziegelmair, 937 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.— Houston [1st Dist.] 1995, no writ) (holding trial court abused its discretion by granting default judgment when party had no notice that failure to appear at a pretrial conference would result in a default judgment); see also Poledore v. Poledore, No. 05-15-00619-CV, 2016 WL 2620648 , at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 6, 2016, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (affirming a default judgment obtained in pretrial hearing where the notice of the hearing included the following warning: failure to appear at the hearing “may result in a default judgment bei

2012LBL Oil Co., 777 S.W.2d at 390-91 ; see also Lopez, 757 S.W.2d at 722 (modifying the Craddock factors for a motion for new trial when a post-answer defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the trial setting, and holding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial (citing Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939))).

2012Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80, 84 , 108 S. Ct. 896, 899 (1988) (stating that failure to give notice of proceeding that will be accorded finality is violation of due process); Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., No. 09- 0715, 2012 WL 539385, at *4 (Tex. Feb. 17, 2012) (per curiam) (“Entry of a post- answer default judgment against a defendant who did not receive notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing constitutes a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.”); see also LBL Oil Co. v. Int’l Power Servs., Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 , 390–91 (Tex. 19

2012LBL Oil Co., 777 S.W.2d at 390-91 ; see also Lopez, 757 S.W.2d at 722 (modifying the Craddock factors for a motion for new trial when a post-answer defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the trial setting, and holding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial (citing Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939))).

2012LBL Oil Co., 777 S.W.2d at 390-91 ; see also Lopez, 757 S.W.2d at 722 (modifying the Craddock factors for a motion for new trial when a post-answer defendant had no actual or constructive notice of the trial setting, and holding that the defendant was entitled to a new trial (citing Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388 , 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939))).