Sec. 85.006. DEFAULT ORDER. (a) Notwithstanding Rule 107, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a court may render a protective order that is binding on a respondent who does not attend a hearing if:
(1) the respondent received service of the application and notice of the hearing; and
(2) proof of service was filed with the court before the hearing.
(b) If the court reschedules the hearing under Chapter 84, a protective order may be rendered if the respondent does not attend the rescheduled hearing.
Added by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 34, Sec. 1, eff. May 5, 1997.
Amended by:
Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., Ch. 787 (H.B. 39), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2021.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
15
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2007–2024 · leading case:
Amir-Sharif v. Hawkins, 246 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007).
Amir-Sharif v. Hawkins, 246 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 85.006(a) (Vernon 2002).”
Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams, No. 14-19-00463-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 2, 2021).
· cites it 4× “, Tex. Fam. Code § 85.006.” 10 Dupuy was served with the protective order application and notice of hearing on April 1, 2019 at 12:35 p.”
Ronderrick Johnson v. Talaun Bathsheba Hassean Simmons, 597 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020).
· cites it 2× “See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 85.006 . In his sole point, Johnson argues that the trial court erred by granting the default family violence protective order because the proof of service of the application for protective order had not been on file for ten days prior to the entry of…”
Richard Lee Dix v. Brittany Foster, No. 06-22-00040-CV, 2022 WL 7208630 (Tex. App.—Texarkana Oct. 13, 2022).
· cites it 2× “” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 85.006 (Supp.). The trial court is required to set a date and conduct a hearing on an application for a family violence protective order within fourteen days of the filing of the application.”
Daniel Mavero v. State, No. 05-14-01097-CR (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 3, 2015).
· cites it 3× “20 Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 85.001 (a) (West 2008) .”
Dorian Kyle Sermon v. Marisol Hernandez, 631 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021).
“The trial court had the legal authority to render a protective order binding against Sermon because the record contains proof that he was served with the application and notice of the hearing.”
Vecentie Morales v. A.D.W., No. 02-23-00073-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 8, 2024).
“008, a trial court may enter a default protective order “that is binding on a respondent who does not attend a hearing if: (1) the respondent received service of the application and notice of hearing; and (2) proof of service was filed with the court before the hearing,” Tex.…”
Brian Hunt v. State of Texas for the Prot. of K. C., No. 03-11-00352-CV (Tex. App.—Austin Aug. 31, 2012).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 85.006 (a) (stating that court may render protective order on “respondent who does not attend a hearing” if respondent received service of application and notice of hearing).”
Tex. Fam. Code § 85.006(a): 6 cases
Amir-Sharif v. Hawkins, 246 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2007).
“Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 85.006(a) (Vernon 2002).”
Christopher Michael Dupuy v. Heather Rene Williams, No. 14-19-00463-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 2, 2021).
“, Tex. Fam. Code § 85.006.” 10 Dupuy was served with the protective order application and notice of hearing on April 1, 2019 at 12:35 p.”
Ronderrick Johnson v. Talaun Bathsheba Hassean Simmons, 597 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2020).
“See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 85.006 . In his sole point, Johnson argues that the trial court erred by granting the default family violence protective order because the proof of service of the application for protective order had not been on file for ten days prior to the entry of…”
Dorian Kyle Sermon v. Marisol Hernandez, 631 S.W.3d 927 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021).
“The trial court had the legal authority to render a protective order binding against Sermon because the record contains proof that he was served with the application and notice of the hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.