Jenna Tabakman v. Gary Tabakman

Summary

The Supreme Court of Texas held that Jenna Tabakman satisfied the Craddock requirements for setting aside a default divorce judgment and obtaining a new trial. The Court concluded that her lack of awareness that she had been served through alternative service negated intentional or consciously indifferent conduct, and that her alleged meritorious defense and showing regarding delay or injury satisfied the remaining elements. The Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A defendant who knows that a lawsuit is pending but is unaware that she was served through alternative service and did not receive the citation may satisfy the first Craddock element if her factual assertions, supported by evidence, negate intentional or consciously indifferent failure to answer and are not controverted.
2. A defendant satisfies the second Craddock element by setting up a meritorious defense through allegations of facts that would constitute a legal defense, supported by affidavits or other evidence providing prima facie proof; the defendant need not overcome controverting evidence at this stage.
3. A defendant satisfies the third Craddock element by showing that granting a new trial will not cause undue delay or injury; after that initial showing, the plaintiff must prove injury that would disadvantage the plaintiff in presenting the merits at the new trial, rather than merely general financial or emotional harm.
4. Jenna Tabakman was entitled to a new trial because she satisfied all three Craddock elements.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Jenna's failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference under the first element of the Craddock test when she knew of the divorce lawsuit but was unaware that alternative service had been completed and did not receive the posted citation.
2. Whether Jenna set up a meritorious defense under the second Craddock element by asserting and supporting a reimbursement claim from the community estate to her separate estate.
3. Whether Jenna satisfied the third Craddock element by showing that a new trial would not cause undue delay or injury to Gary.
4. Whether the court of appeals erred in affirming the denial of Jenna's motion for a new trial.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded