Maya Management Group LLC v. Chapman, 02-26-00112-CV, October 08, 2026.
On appeal from 67th District Court, Tarrant County, Texas
Synopsis
A no-answer default admits properly pleaded liability facts, but it does not establish the amount or causation of unliquidated damages. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 243, affidavits showing only that medical services and charges were reasonable and necessary did not prove that the premises-liability event caused the claimed injuries and damages; the Second Court of Appeals therefore affirmed liability but reversed the damages award for a limited new proceeding.
Relevance to Family Law
The opinion has direct procedural significance for divorce, custody, and property cases involving a default prove-up. A respondent’s failure to answer does not relieve the movant of the obligation to present competent evidence on matters that require judicial findings, including property values, reimbursement claims, economic damages, attorney’s fees, tort damages, and—in suits affecting the parent-child relationship—the child’s best interest. When a family-law claim seeks unliquidated relief, counsel must prove not merely that expenses or losses exist, but that the event or conduct at issue caused the particular damages requested.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Vanessa Loraine Chapman sued Maya Management Group, LLC, doing business as El Rio Grande Latin Market, after allegedly slipping on a puddle of liquid in the freezer aisle of Maya’s store. She asserted premises-liability and negligence claims, alleging that Maya failed to inspect the premises, warn of the condition, or remedy it.
Maya was properly served but did not answer. Chapman moved for a no-answer default judgment and submitted a bill of costs, “Affidavits of Medical Records,” and “Affidavits Establishing Necessity and Reasonableness of Services and Charges.” Although several affidavits stated that medical records were attached, no such records were included.
The trial court rendered judgment for $239,120.22. That amount included $225,981.36 in damages, $12,155.22 in prejudgment interest, and $983.64 in litigation costs. The damages covered past and future medical expenses, past and future pain and suffering, past and future mental anguish, and past and future physical impairment.
Maya brought a restricted appeal. It argued that error appeared on the face of the record because Chapman’s evidence did not connect the slip-and-fall event to the medical treatment or any other category of damages awarded.
Issues Decided
-
Whether Maya satisfied the procedural requirements for a restricted appeal under Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1(c) and 30.
-
Whether Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 243 required Chapman to present legally sufficient evidence connecting the slip-and-fall event to her claimed unliquidated damages.
-
Whether affidavits addressing the reasonableness and necessity of medical services and charges established that the fall caused the medical conditions treated.
-
Whether the same affidavits supported awards for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and physical impairment.
-
Whether the appropriate disposition was reversal of the entire judgment or a limited remand addressing causation and the amount of unliquidated damages.
Rules Applied
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 243, when a cause of action is unliquidated or not proved by a written instrument, the trial court must hear evidence concerning damages before rendering a default judgment.
A no-answer default generally admits properly pleaded factual allegations concerning liability. It does not, however, admit the amount of unliquidated damages or the causal connection between the event sued upon and the damages claimed. The court relied principally on Holt Atherton Industries, Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992), and Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp., 675 S.W.2d 729 (Tex. 1984).
The court distinguished between two causal nexuses in a negligence action:
- The nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the event giving rise to liability; and
- The nexus between that event and the plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
A no-answer default may establish the first nexus through the admission of properly pleaded liability facts. It does not establish the second nexus for unliquidated damages.
The court reviewed the evidence under the ordinary legal-sufficiency standard. Evidence is legally insufficient when it is conclusory, speculative, or amounts to no more than a scintilla.
For mental anguish, the court cited Parkway Co. v. Woodruff, 901 S.W.2d 434 (Tex. 1995), which requires evidence demonstrating the nature, duration, and severity of the mental anguish and a substantial disruption in the claimant’s daily routine. The mere fact of an injury likewise does not, standing alone, prove compensable pain, mental anguish, or physical impairment.
A restricted appellant must establish that it timely filed its notice of restricted appeal, was a party to the underlying suit, did not participate in the dispositive hearing or timely pursue specified postjudgment remedies, and can show error apparent on the face of the record. For this purpose, the face of the record includes the clerk’s record and any reporter’s record.
Application
Maya timely filed its restricted appeal, was a named party, did not participate in the trial-court proceedings, and did not file a postjudgment motion. The court therefore concluded that Maya had invoked the court’s restricted-appeal jurisdiction and turned to whether the record disclosed reversible error.
Because Maya did not answer, the default established the properly pleaded allegations connecting Maya’s conduct to the slip-and-fall event. That admission resolved liability, but it did not establish that the fall caused Chapman’s claimed medical conditions, medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, or physical impairment.
Chapman’s affidavits established, at most, that healthcare providers furnished services and charged stated amounts that were reasonable and necessary. They did not identify the conditions treated or provide competent evidence that those conditions resulted from the fall. Reasonableness and necessity of treatment are analytically distinct from causation: treatment may be reasonable and necessary for a condition without establishing that the occurrence made the basis of suit caused that condition.
The evidentiary gap was even greater for the noneconomic damages. The affidavits did not describe Chapman’s pain, the nature and severity of any mental anguish, disruption to her daily life, or any loss of physical capacity resulting from the fall. Consequently, the evidence did not support any of the eight categories of damages awarded.
Because the deficiency concerned unliquidated damages rather than admitted liability, the court did not disturb the liability portion of the default judgment. Instead, it ordered a limited remand to determine whether the slip and fall caused Chapman’s damages and, if causation is proven, the amount of those damages.
Holding
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 243 required legally sufficient evidence of a causal nexus between the slip-and-fall event and Chapman’s unliquidated damages. A no-answer default admitted the properly pleaded facts establishing Maya’s liability, but it did not admit that the event caused every injury or loss alleged.
The affidavits concerning the reasonableness and necessity of medical services and charges did not establish medical causation. They showed that expenses were incurred, but they did not show that the fall caused the conditions for which Chapman received treatment.
The evidence was also legally insufficient to support damages for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and physical impairment. Nothing in the submitted materials established the existence, extent, or event-related cause of those losses.
The court affirmed the default judgment as to liability, reversed the award of unliquidated damages, and remanded for a new proceeding limited to causation and, if causation is established, the amount of damages.
Practical Application
Family-law litigators should treat every default prove-up as an evidentiary hearing, not as an administrative request for the relief recited in the petition. The pleadings frame the requested relief, but they do not substitute for admissible evidence on disputed valuations, unliquidated losses, attorney’s fees, reimbursement, waste, fraud damages, or the child’s best interest.
In a divorce involving tort or fiduciary-duty claims, evidence that funds were withdrawn or property was damaged does not necessarily establish the amount of recoverable loss or connect each claimed item to the actionable event. Counsel should build a transaction-by-transaction evidentiary chain using authenticated account records, tracing schedules, valuation testimony, invoices, and testimony explaining causation.
For reimbursement and characterization disputes, a conclusory inventory is vulnerable. The movant should identify the estate that supplied the funds, the estate that benefited, the nature of the contribution, the amount supported by records, and any offsets or benefits that affect equitable reimbursement. If enhanced value is claimed, evidence of expenditures alone may not establish the enhancement attributable to those expenditures.
In cases involving medical or psychological expenses, an affidavit addressing reasonableness and necessity should not be treated as proof that alleged family violence, an accident, or another event caused the condition treated. Depending on the nature of the condition and the causal question, the record may require medical records, fact testimony, treating-provider testimony, or qualified expert testimony.
A default in a custody case does not permit conservatorship, possession, or restriction decisions to be made solely from the requested relief in the petition. The movant still must present evidence supporting the child’s best interest and the specific statutory findings required for the requested orders.
Attorney’s fees likewise require a developed record. Counsel should prove recoverability, segregation when required, reasonable hours, reasonable rates, the nature of the services performed, and the relationship between the work and the relief obtained. An invoice or total fee figure, without explanatory testimony or a sufficiently detailed declaration, may leave an avoidable sufficiency issue.
Finally, practitioners defending a default judgment through restricted appeal should examine the entire face of the record. The most productive issues often arise not from liability—which may have been admitted—but from missing exhibits, conclusory declarations, absent testimony, unsupported future damages, or an evidentiary failure to connect the occurrence to the relief awarded.
Checklists
Preparing a Family-Law Default Prove-Up
- Confirm valid service and the expiration of the answer deadline.
- Verify that the requested relief is supported by the live pleading and fair notice.
- Identify which allegations are admitted by default and which matters still require evidence.
- Arrange for a reporter’s record of the prove-up hearing.
- Prepare admissible exhibits rather than relying solely on counsel’s representations.
- Offer testimony addressing every material element of the requested relief.
- Obtain express rulings admitting exhibits into evidence.
- Confirm that referenced attachments are actually attached, filed, and offered.
- Prepare a proposed order that tracks the pleadings and evidence.
- Address all statutory findings required for the requested family-law relief.
Proving Causation and Unliquidated Damages
- Identify each separate category of damages.
- Match each damages category to its governing elements.
- Present evidence that the event or actionable conduct caused the claimed loss.
- Distinguish proof of causation from proof that an expense was reasonable and necessary.
- Use expert testimony when the causal relationship is outside common knowledge.
- Authenticate and offer the underlying medical, financial, or business records.
- Prove past and future damages separately.
- Establish future damages with evidence showing reasonable probability, not speculation.
- Provide testimony concerning the nature, duration, and severity of noneconomic harm.
- Avoid assuming that proof of an injury automatically proves pain, mental anguish, or impairment.
Proving Property and Reimbursement Claims
- Establish the character and value of each significant asset and liability.
- Identify the valuation date and methodology.
- Support account balances with statements admitted into evidence.
- Trace separate-property claims with source documents and explanatory testimony.
- Identify the contributing and benefited marital estates for each reimbursement claim.
- Prove the amount and nature of each contribution.
- Address offsets, benefits received, and equitable considerations.
- Connect any fraud, waste, or breach allegation to a quantifiable loss or appropriate reconstitution remedy.
- Reconcile the requested division with the admitted inventory and valuation evidence.
Proving Attorney’s Fees
- Establish a legal basis for fee recovery.
- Provide evidence of the services performed.
- Prove reasonable hours and reasonable rates.
- Explain why the work was necessary to the proceeding.
- Segregate fees attributable to claims for which fees are not recoverable, unless an exception applies.
- Address conditional appellate fees by stage.
- Offer billing records when helpful and properly authenticated.
- Connect the requested amount to the evidence rather than relying on a lump-sum request.
Reviewing a Default Judgment for Restricted Appeal
- Calculate the six-month restricted-appeal deadline from the date the judgment was signed.
- Confirm that the appellant was a party to the underlying case.
- Determine whether the appellant participated in the hearing resulting in the judgment.
- Review whether any disqualifying postjudgment motion or request was filed.
- Obtain and examine the complete clerk’s record.
- Determine whether a reporter’s record exists and obtain it.
- Compare the judgment’s relief against the live pleadings.
- Identify missing exhibits, unattached records, and documents referenced but not admitted.
- Test the legal sufficiency of evidence for each unliquidated award.
- Examine whether the evidence establishes causation, not merely the existence of expenses.
- Determine whether the proper remedy is a limited damages remand rather than reversal of admitted liability.
Citation
Maya Management Group LLC v. Chapman, No. 02-26-00112-CV (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 8, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.).
Full Opinion
Family Law Crossover
The procedural rule is that a no-answer default establishes properly pleaded liability facts but does not eliminate the evidentiary burden for unliquidated damages or other relief requiring judicial findings. Rule 243 requires the trial court to hear evidence, and the proof must connect the event or conduct established by default to each category of loss awarded. Evidence that an expense exists—or that it was reasonable and necessary—is not necessarily evidence that the occurrence at issue caused it.
In a Texas family-law matter, this mechanism may arise when a defaulting respondent faces joined tort claims, breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims, fraud-on-the-community allegations, reimbursement claims, property-loss claims, or requests for attorney’s fees. It also reinforces the broader default-prove-up requirement that divorce grounds, property division, conservatorship, possession, support, and best-interest determinations must rest on the evidence and findings required by the Family Code rather than on default alone. The practical result is a category-specific prove-up: counsel should identify the governing element for each requested form of relief and place competent evidence supporting that element in the record.
~~19a6dd99-aa99-44cb-b342-5f1d90a80533~~
Share this content: