Rule 239a Case Law — What Texas Courts Have Actually Done

Proposed — not Texas law The SAFE SAPCR Act is draft legislation. It has not been introduced, has not passed either chamber, and is not in effect. Nothing on this page describes a rule a Texas court applies today.

What 83 published Texas opinions actually did with the rule

Last updated: September 8, 2026

This page is the case-law survey for Texas Rule 239a. The rule itself — what it requires, the verification gap, the deadlines it sets and how it affects SAPCR cases — is explained on that page. The text of the rule is published by the Texas Judicial Branch.

In short.

  • 83 distinct Texas cases mention Rule 239a. Four of them are family-law cases.
  • A Rule 239a failure on its own has not undone a judgment — courts apply the finality clause as written, in 1994 and again in 2026.
  • Where a false certification did matter, relief came through a bill of review, not from the rule standing alone.
  • The most recent published SAPCR decision on the rule is a loss for the parent.

What the Courts Have Actually Done With Rule 239a

The paragraph above describes what the finality clause means. This section reports what Texas courts have done with it, because a reader deciding whether to spend money on a challenge deserves the losses as well as the wins.

A full-text search of published Texas opinions returns 92 opinion records that mention Rule 239a — 83 distinct cases once duplicate records for the same decision are removed. Four of those 83 are family-law cases. The rule is litigated regularly in commercial disputes and almost never by parents.

A Rule 239a failure, by itself, does not undo a judgment

This is not a gap in the case law. Courts say it directly, because the rule tells them to.

In Matter of Marriage of Collins, 870 S.W.2d 682, 684 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, no writ), a divorce respondent argued the court failed to give him notice of the default judgment. The court quoted Rule 239a and held: This rule provides notification to a defendant that a default judgment has been entered against him so that he may pursue his post judgment remedies. Failure to notify does not result in reversible error.

Thirty-two years later, nothing had changed. In In the Interest of I.J.W. and M.R.W., No. 08-25-00116-CV (Tex. App.—El Paso Apr. 15, 2026) — a suit affecting the parent-child relationship — a father argued the Certificate of Last Known Address had been filed prematurely, before service. The court overruled him: Father provides no authoritative support for his argument that filing these documents “prematurely” invalidates the judgment. Furthermore, his argument ignores the last sentence of the Rule, which states that “[f]ailure to comply with the provisions of this rule does not affect the finality of the judgment.”

That is the most recent published SAPCR decision on this rule, and it is a loss for the parent. Anyone considering a standalone Rule 239a challenge should read it first.

Where a false certification did matter

Katy Venture, Ltd. v. Cremona Bistro Corp., 469 S.W.3d 160, 163–65 (Tex. 2015), is the case that shows what does work. The plaintiff obtained a default judgment for more than 20,000 and, in the Supreme Court’s words, certified the Katy entities’ outdated registered address as their “last known mailing address.” The clerk then mailed notice of the default judgment to the registered address, and the Katy entities did not receive it. The judgment became final shortly thereafter.

The defendants filed an equitable bill of review. The Court held they had raised a genuine issue of material fact, reversed the court of appeals, and remanded.

The distinction matters. Relief did not come from the Rule 239a defect standing alone. It came through a bill of review, where the false certification was evidence supporting the elements of that claim — including that the failure was unmixed with any fault of the defendants. The Texas Supreme Court restated this line of authority as recently as Huffman Asset Management, LLC v. Colter, No. 24-0205 (Tex. May 29, 2026) (concurring opinion), which cites Katy Venture as reversing because the plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 239a created a fact issue.

Why this is an argument for changing the rule, not for litigating it

Read together, these cases describe a rule that disarms itself. It imposes a duty, then states in its own final sentence that breaching the duty carries no consequence for the judgment. Courts have applied that sentence exactly as written, in 1994 and again in 2026.

A parent who was never notified is therefore left with the harder, slower and more expensive route — a separate lawsuit — while the party who certified the wrong address faces nothing. That is the gap the SAFE SAPCR Act is drafted to close, and it is a drafting problem rather than a judicial one.

The other 75 published Texas opinions citing Rule 239a

Retrieved from the CourtListener full-text database of published opinions. The five cases discussed above account for eight of the 83 distinct entries, because two of them also appear as the lower-court decisions that were later reversed. Listed newest first. This list is provided so the survey above can be checked rather than taken on trust.

  • Javier Vasquez and RJT Commercial, Inc. v. Moises Tonche Vargas, Maria Vargas, Individually and as Next Friend of S.A v. and E.I v. Minors and Saul Vargas (Tex. App.-Houston [15th Dist.] 2025) — 15-25-00080-CV
  • In Re Dannie Smith v. the State of Texas (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2025) — 01-24-01004-CV
  • James McWilliams v. KO Construction, LLC (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2024) — 02-23-00418-CV
  • Balkan Express, LLC v. Stefanie Hollins (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2023) — 01-22-00911-CV
  • Mario A. Davila v. Easy Way Leisure Corporation D/B/A Easy Way Products Co. (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2022) — 13-20-00416-CV
  • A.D. Sparlin v. Antonio Gomez (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2021) — 02-20-00236-CV
  • Juan Antonio Rivera and Luz Maria Rivera v. William McCaskill (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2021) — 13-20-00353-CV
  • Acadian Properties Austin, LLC v. Kjmonte Investments, LLC (Tex. App.-El Paso 2021) — 08-20-00048-CV
  • MG International Menswear, Inc. v. Robert Graham Designs LLC (Tex. App.-Dallas 2019) — 05-18-00517-CV
  • Asset Protection & Security Services, L.P. v. Virginia Armijo (Tex. App.-El Paso 2019) — 570 S.W.3d 377, 08-17-00250-CV
  • Lutea, L.L.C. and Pharia, L.L.C. v. W.S. Draper AKA Warner Draper (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2018) — 02-18-00120-CV
  • Samotta Richardson-Wiggins v. AH4R Properties Two, LLC. (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2016) — 02-15-00158-CV
  • Copano NGL Services, LLC v. John Ashcraft, Individually and as Trustee for the John Ashcraft Family Trust 2012 (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2015) — 13-15-00342-CV
  • Barry Nussbaum v. Builders Bank, an Illinois Banking Corporation (Tex. App. 2015) — 478 S.W.3d 104, NO. 02-14-00304-CV
  • Retaka Romeo Nelson v. Shannon Brochette Nelson (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2015) — 01-13-00816-CV
  • Highway 205 Farms, Ltd. and Maurice E. Moore, Jr. v. City of Dallas (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2015) — 14-0917
  • Ha Duong Nhu and D&H Restaurant Equipment v. Hunan Ranch Corporation (Tex. App.-Austin 2015) — 03-14-00821-CV
  • Lcs Corrections Services, Inc. D/B/A Coastal Bend Detention Center v. Kimberly Chavera (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2013) — 13-12-00591-CV
  • Guillermo Gonzalez v. Eugenio M. Tapia (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2009) — 13-08-00039-CV
  • Gonzalez v. Tapia (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2009) — 287 S.W.3d 805, 13-08-00039-CV
  • Chike Rapulueke Mbonu v. Office of the Attorney General (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2008) — 01-07-00659-CV
  • Mitch Alford v. Robert W. Cary, M.D. (Tex. App.-Tyler 2007) — 12-04-00314-CV
  • in Re Clarendon National Insurance Company (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) — 01-06-00450-CV
  • Clarendon National Insurance Co. v. Thompson (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2006) — 199 S.W.3d 482, 01-05-01071-CV
  • Hahn v. Whiting Petroleum Corp. (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2005) — 171 S.W.3d 307, 13-02-391-CV
  • Jose Abel Garza v. Attorney General of Texas and Margarita A. Yogi (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2005) — 13-02-00153-CV
  • Garza v. Attorney General (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2005) — 166 S.W.3d 799, 13-02-153-CV
  • Layton v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp. (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2004) — 141 S.W.3d 760, 13-02-608-CV
  • Eleanore Layton v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corporation (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 2004) — 13-02-00608-CV
  • Continental Casualty Co. v. Davilla (Tex. App. 2004) — 139 S.W.3d 374, 2-03-270-CV
  • Continental Casualty Company v. Salvidor Davilla (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2004) — 02-03-00270-CV
  • in the Interest of L.R.M., a Child (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003) — 02-02-00409-CV
  • Campbell v. Fincher (Tex. App.-Waco 2002) — 72 S.W.3d 723, 10-00-243-CV
  • Jordan v. Jordan (Tex. App.-Beaumont 2001) — 36 S.W.3d 259, 09-00-062 CV
  • Dispensa v. University State Bank (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1999) — 987 S.W.2d 923, 14-97-00380-CV
  • Russell Harris v. Dennis J. Moore D/B/A Moore's Trucking (Tex. App.-Austin 1997) — 03-96-00702-CV
  • Norman Communications, Inc. v. Texas Eastman Co. (Tex. App.-Tyler 1997) — 956 S.W.2d 68, 12-95-00222-CV
  • Caldwell v. Barnes (Tex. App.-Edinburg-Corpus Christi 1997) — 941 S.W.2d 182, 13-93-699-CV
  • Graham v. Fashing (Tex. App.-El Paso 1996) — 928 S.W.2d 567, 08-96-00086-CV
  • Alicia Moreno v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company (Tex. App.-Austin 1995) — 03-94-00668-CV
  • Jordan v. Jordan (Tex. App.-Beaumont 1994) — 890 S.W.2d 555, 09-93-269 CV
  • Xu v. Davis (Tex. App.-Waco 1994) — 884 S.W.2d 916, 10-94-228-CV
  • Ovation Homes, Inc. and Leldon W. Shead v. Clark/Kyser Wholesale Lumber, Inc. and John Dunlap (Tex. App.-Austin 1993) — 03-92-00201-CV
  • John v. State (Tex. 1992) — 826 S.W.2d 138, D-1557
  • Long v. McDermott (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1991) — 813 S.W.2d 622, 01-90-00467-CV
  • Bloom v. Bloom (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1989) — 767 S.W.2d 463, 04-88-00105-CV
  • McDonough v. Williamson (Tex. App. 1987) — 742 S.W.2d 737, B14-87-005-CV
  • United National Bank v. Travel Music of San Antonio, Inc. (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1987) — 737 S.W.2d 30, 04-87-00148-CV
  • Pope v. Moore (Tex. App.-Dallas 1987) — 729 S.W.2d 125, 05-86-00840-CV
  • Remley v. Kleypas (E.D. Tex. 1986) — 645 F. Supp. 690, Civ. A. No. B-84-93-CA
  • Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc. (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1986) — 715 S.W.2d 721, 01-85-0961-CV
  • City of Laredo v. Threadgill (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1985) — 686 S.W.2d 734, 04-84-00336-CV
  • City of Houston v. Arney (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1984) — 680 S.W.2d 867, 01-83-00744-CV
  • Buddy L. Inc. v. General Trailer Co., Inc. (Tex. App.-Dallas 1984) — 672 S.W.2d 541, 05-83-00132-CV
  • Munson Engineering, Inc. v. Farris (Tex. App. 1984) — 666 S.W.2d 355, No. C14-83-732-CV
  • Vinklarek v. Vinklarek (Tex. App. 1980) — 596 S.W.2d 197, 17590
  • H. L. McRae Co. v. Hooker Construction Co. (Tex. App. 1979) — 579 S.W.2d 62, 12852
  • Buckler v. Tate (Tex. App. 1978) — 572 S.W.2d 562, 17176
  • Grayson Fire Extinguisher Co., Inc. v. Jackson (Tex. App. 1978) — 566 S.W.2d 321, 19499
  • Hillson Steel Products, Inc. v. Wirth Ltd. (Tex. App. 1976) — 538 S.W.2d 162, 16685
  • Crabbe v. Hord (Tex. App. 1976) — 536 S.W.2d 409, 17711
  • Lee v. Thomas (Tex. App. 1976) — 534 S.W.2d 422, 5534
  • Bohn v. Bohn (Tex. App. 1973) — 498 S.W.2d 267, 836
  • Mansfield State Bank v. Fonville (Tex. App. 1973) — 496 S.W.2d 945, No. 17418
  • Lane Wood Industries, Inc. v. DeMoss (Tex. App. 1973) — 489 S.W.2d 673, No. 11972
  • Cooper v. Hall (Tex. App. 1972) — 489 S.W.2d 409, 8297
  • Swearingen v. Swearingen (Tex. App. 1972) — 487 S.W.2d 784, 15097
  • Sanchez v. Texas Industries, Inc. (Tex. App. 1972) — 485 S.W.2d 385, 5157
  • Griffin v. Browne (Tex. App. 1972) — 482 S.W.2d 716, 15919
  • Allright, Inc. v. Roper (Tex. App. 1972) — 478 S.W.2d 245, 589
  • Farias v. Besteiro (Tex. App. 1970) — 453 S.W.2d 314, 535
  • Texas MacHinery & Equipment Co. v. Gordon Knox Oil & Exploration Co. (Tex. 1969) — 442 S.W.2d 315, B-1287
  • Diamond Chemical Co. v. Sonoco Products Co. (Tex. App. 1968) — 437 S.W.2d 307, 443
  • Finlay v. Jones (Tex. 1968) — 435 S.W.2d 136, B-1007
  • Kelly Moore Paint Co. of Texas v. Northeast National Bank of Fort Worth (Tex. App. 1968) — 426 S.W.2d 591, 16903

This page explains publicly available Texas procedural rules and reported appellate decisions for general educational purposes. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and cannot account for the facts of your case. Rules and deadlines change, and their application is fact-specific. Consult a licensed Texas family law attorney before acting. Statements about pending litigation describe allegations in public court filings; those allegations are contested and no findings have been entered.

How much time do you actually have left?

Enter the date the order was signed and the date you found out about it. You will see which remedies are still open — motion for new trial, Rule 306a, restricted appeal, or bill of review — and how many days are left on each. Free, no signup, nothing leaves your browser.

Check my deadlines →

Support Reform

Sign the petition supporting the SAFE SAPCR Act, or contact your legislator directly.