GoodLeap, LLC v. Preston McGrew, 12-26-00156-CV, July 08, 2026.
On appeal from 423rd Judicial District Court, Bastrop County, Texas
Synopsis
A default judgment cannot survive restricted appeal unless the face of the record affirmatively shows strict compliance with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107. When the return of service omits the server’s name, signature, verification, or the Rule 107(e) declaration language, service is fatally defective, personal jurisdiction never attaches, and the default judgment must be reversed.
Relevance to Family Law
This is a service-of-process case, but it has immediate consequences in Texas family litigation. Default divorces, SAPCR modifications, enforcement actions, termination cases, post-judgment turnover proceedings, and property-related suits between former spouses all depend on a record that affirmatively demonstrates valid service. If the return is defective on its face, a seemingly final default decree or enforcement judgment may be vulnerable to restricted appeal even where the respondent likely had actual notice.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
The underlying dispute was not a family case. A pro se plaintiff sued GoodLeap, LLC over a residential solar loan and later obtained a default judgment after GoodLeap did not answer or appear. The trial court’s judgment voided the loan, permanently enjoined enforcement, and awarded substantial actual and treble damages.
GoodLeap pursued a restricted appeal. The first three elements were straightforward: it filed its notice within six months of judgment, it was a party to the suit, and it did not participate in the default hearing or file a timely post-judgment motion. The fight centered on the fourth requirement—whether error was apparent on the face of the record.
The appellate record contained a citation and a “notice of service of original petition” purporting to reflect certified-mail service on GoodLeap, a nonresident defendant in California. But the return materials, as described by the court, failed to comply with Rule 107 in multiple ways, including omission of the process server’s name and other required formalities. Those defects became dispositive on restricted appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether error was apparent on the face of the record because the return of service failed to strictly comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 107.
- Whether omissions in the return—such as the process server’s name, signature, verification, and Rule 107(e) declaration language—rendered service invalid.
- Whether the resulting default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction and therefore had to be reversed on restricted appeal.
Rules Applied
The court applied the familiar restricted-appeal framework:
- Notice of restricted appeal must be filed within six months after judgment.
- The appellant must have been a party to the underlying suit.
- The appellant must not have participated in the hearing resulting in the complained-of judgment and must not have timely filed a post-judgment motion or request for findings.
- Error must be apparent on the face of the record.
On service, the court relied on the settled Texas rule that strict compliance with citation, service, and return requirements must affirmatively appear in the record before a default judgment can stand on direct attack. The court cited, among other authorities:
- TEX. R. CIV. P. 107
- WWLC Inv., L.P. v. Miraki, 624 S.W.3d 796 (Tex. 2021)
- Hubicki v. Festina, 226 S.W.3d 405 (Tex. 2007)
- Ins. Co. of Penn. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009)
Rule 107 requires the return to be completed by the serving officer or authorized person and to include the server’s name. If the server is a certified process server, the return must include the certification information required by the rule. The return must be signed. If signed by someone other than a sheriff, constable, or clerk, it must be verified or signed under penalty of perjury, and if done under penalty of perjury, it must substantially comply with Rule 107(e)’s prescribed declaration language, including the declarant’s address.
The court also reiterated two points Texas litigators ignore at their peril: there are no presumptions in favor of valid service on restricted appeal, and actual notice does not cure defective service absent a general appearance.
Application
The Tyler Court of Appeals treated the case exactly as Texas default jurisprudence requires: mechanically, not equitably. Once GoodLeap established the jurisdictional prerequisites for restricted appeal, the court reviewed the clerk’s and reporter’s records to determine whether valid service affirmatively appeared on the face of the record. It did not indulge presumptions, infer omitted facts, or treat substantial compliance as enough.
The record failed that test. The filed “notice of service” did not satisfy Rule 107’s mandatory components. The opinion identifies multiple omissions, including the process server’s name, and frames the defects within the rule’s non-discretionary requirements that the return be signed and, when executed by a non-officer, verified or supported by a compliant unsworn declaration under Rule 107(e). Because those elements were missing from the face of the record, the court concluded that service was invalid as a matter of law.
That invalidity had a jurisdictional consequence. In the default-judgment context, a defective return means the trial court never acquired personal jurisdiction over the defendant. And when personal jurisdiction is absent, the default judgment cannot stand. The court therefore reversed without reaching for any harmless-error rationale or factual inference that GoodLeap probably knew about the suit.
Holding
The court held that strict compliance with Rule 107 must affirmatively appear on the face of the record to support a default judgment in a restricted appeal. A return of service that omits required Rule 107 information is fatally defective and cannot sustain default.
The court further held that omissions such as the process server’s name, signature, verification, or Rule 107(e) declaration language deprive the trial court of personal jurisdiction when no valid service otherwise appears in the record. Because the record here showed multiple Rule 107 defects, the default judgment against GoodLeap had to be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
Practical Application
For family lawyers, this opinion is a reminder that service remains one of the most common—and most preventable—appellate traps in default practice. In divorce cases, the risk appears when one spouse seeks a no-answer default after personal service or certified-mail service. In SAPCRs and modification proceedings, it arises when a parent is served out of state or through a private process server and the return is uploaded with missing declaration language or no signature. In enforcement litigation, including turnover, clarification, and money-judgment collection proceedings, a defective return can unravel a post-decree default order months later through restricted appeal.
The strategic lesson is simple: do not prove up a default until someone has performed a line-by-line Rule 107 audit of the filed return. That review should occur before the hearing, before submission of the proposed judgment, and again before post-judgment enforcement begins. For the defense side, this case is a roadmap for restricted-appeal review of default divorces, modifications, and enforcement judgments where the respondent did not appear. If the face of the record does not strictly comply, the judgment may be reversible even if the respondent knew the case existed.
Checklists
Pre-Default Rule 107 Audit
- Confirm that the citation and return are both in the clerk’s record.
- Confirm that the return identifies the person who served process by name.
- Confirm that the return is signed by the officer or authorized person who served process.
- If a private process server was used, confirm the return includes the required certification information, if applicable under the rule.
- If the return was executed by someone other than a sheriff, constable, or clerk, confirm it is either verified or signed under penalty of perjury.
- If signed under penalty of perjury, confirm the declaration substantially tracks Rule 107(e), including the declarant’s full address.
- Confirm the manner of service stated in the return matches the method authorized and actually used.
- Confirm the defendant’s name on the citation and return matches the pleadings and requested judgment exactly.
- Confirm the return was on file for the required period before default is taken.
Default Divorce and SAPCR Review
- Verify service on the respondent exactly as reflected in the filed return, not as described in counsel’s notes.
- Check whether out-of-state service triggered any additional procedural requirements.
- Confirm the petition and citation identify the proper party capacity and correct legal name.
- Review whether any amended pleading required new service before default.
- Ensure the prove-up record does not assume actual notice cures technical defects.
- Delay default if any Rule 107 element is missing or ambiguous.
Restricted Appeal Screening for Defense Counsel
- Determine whether the notice of restricted appeal can be filed within six months of the judgment.
- Confirm the client was a party to the suit.
- Confirm the client did not participate in the hearing resulting in the complained-of judgment.
- Confirm no timely post-judgment motion or regular notice of appeal was filed.
- Pull the complete clerk’s record and inspect the return for strict Rule 107 compliance.
- Compare the citation, method of service, return, and judgment for internal inconsistencies.
- Look for omissions involving the server’s name, signature, verification, declaration language, address, dates, or method of service.
- Frame the issue as error apparent on the face of the record without reliance on extrinsic evidence.
Post-Judgment Enforcement Risk Management
- Before enforcing a default family judgment, re-check the service record for Rule 107 defects.
- Assess whether collection efforts could be undone if the default is later reversed.
- Advise clients about the instability of a default judgment resting on a defective return.
- Consider curing service and retrying the merits instead of accelerating enforcement on a vulnerable judgment.
Family Law Crossover
The procedural rule this case reinforces is straightforward but powerful: in a restricted appeal from a default judgment, the reviewing court examines only the face of the record to determine whether service strictly complied with the rules, and no presumption favors validity. In family law, that mechanism most often arises when a respondent in a divorce, modification, enforcement, or property-related suit does not answer, a default is taken, and the respondent later attacks the judgment within six months by restricted appeal. If the filed return omits mandatory Rule 107 components—particularly in private-process-server or certified-mail situations—the family-law judgment may be reversed for lack of personal jurisdiction without any inquiry into the merits of the underlying decree or order.
Citation
GoodLeap, LLC v. McGrew, No. 12-26-00156-CV, slip op. (Tex. App.—Tyler July 8, 2026, no pet.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
~~52d06d2f-0e9a-4e13-8e27-39133a5ea782~~
Share this content: