Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-25-00689-CV
QUEST LINER INC.,
Appellant
v.
Julissa Ann RODRIGUEZ and Damian Rodriguez,
Appellees
From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas
Trial Court No. 24-196
Honorable Kirsten Cohoon, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Velia J. Meza, Justice
Sitting: Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice
Adrian A. Spears II, Justice
Velia J. Meza, Justice
Delivered and Filed: October 28, 2026
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Quest Liner, Inc. brings this restricted appeal from a default judgment rendered in favor of
Julissa and Damian Rodriguez for injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle collision. This
appeal turns on whether error is apparent on the face of the record. Specifically, Quest Liner argues
that the record fails to affirmatively demonstrate that the individual served on behalf of its
registered agent was authorized to receive service of process. Because the return of service does
not affirmatively establish that the served individual was authorized to accept service, error is
04-25-00689-CV
apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand
the cause for a new trial.
BACKGROUND
The Rodriguezes sued Quest Liner and its unidentified driver, John Doe, for damages
arising from a motor vehicle collision. In their petition, the Rodriguezes asserted negligence claims
against the unidentified driver and sought to hold Quest Liner vicariously and directly liable for
their damages.
The Rodriguezes sought to serve Quest Liner through its registered agent, Incorp Services,
Inc., at 815 Brazos Street, Suite 500, Austin, Texas 78701. The Kendall County District Clerk
issued a citation which listed the registered agent’s address as 815 “Brazaos” Street, Suite 500,
Austin, Texas 78701. The affidavit of service reflects that on June 25, 2024, the process server
delivered the citation to “Jason Casey for QUEST LINER, INC. through its Registered Agent,
INCORP SERVICES, INC.” at 815 Brazos Street, Suite 500, Austin, Travis County, Texas 78701.
Quest Liner did not file an answer. On July 9, 2025, the trial court signed a default judgment
in favor of Rodriguezes. 1 This restricted appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
In its second issue, Quest Liner contends that error is apparent on the face of the record
since it fails to establish that Jason Casey—the individual served with process—had authority to
accept service on behalf of Quest Liner or its registered agent. We agree.
A restricted appeal permits a direct attack on a default judgment after the deadline for filing
an ordinary appeal has passed. Shamrock Enters., LLC v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, 728 S.W.3d
1
The reporter’s record contains no testimony or evidence concerning the manner of service beyond counsel’s representation that service was completed on June 25, 2024, through Quest Liner’s registered agent and that the return of service was attached to the motion for default judgment.
-2-04-25-00689-CV
693, 696 (Tex. 2026). To prevail on a restricted appeal, Quest Liner must establish that: (1) it filed
notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the trial court signed the judgment; (2) it
was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the
complained of judgment and did not timely file any post judgment motions or requests for findings
of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Pike-Grant v.
Grant, 447 S.W.3d 884, 886 (Tex. 2014) (per curiam); TEX. R. APP. P. 30.
The scope of this inquiry is the same as an ordinary appeal in that the entire case is
reviewed; the only restriction is that the error must appear on the face of the record. Norman
Commc’ns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997) (per curiam). “Whether service
was in strict compliance with the rules is a question of law that we review de novo.” Trevino v.
Travis, No. 04-22-00167-CV, 2023 WL 4095260, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 21, 2023,
no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Pro-Fire & Sprinkler, L.L.C. v. Law Co., Inc., 661 S.W.3d 156, 163
(Tex. App.—Dallas 2021, no pet.)).
Because the Rodriguezes concede the first three elements, the only issue before us is
whether any error is apparent on the face of the record.
“For well over a century,” the Supreme Court of Texas “has required that strict compliance
with the rules for service of citation affirmatively appear on the record in order for a default
judgment to withstand direct attack.” Primate Const., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex.
1994) (per curiam). And recently, the supreme court echoed its increased “skeptic[ism] of default
judgments, regardless of the precise legal issue under consideration or the procedural posture in
which the case arises.” Huffman Asset Mgmt., LLC v. Colter, 740 S.W.3d 476, 485 (Tex. 2026).
For this reason, no presumption of valid service exists in a restricted appeal; instead, the record
must affirmatively reflect strict compliance with every procedural requirement. Spanton v. Bellah,
-3-04-25-00689-CV
612 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex. 2020) (per curiam); Fid. & Guar. Ins. Co. v. Drewery Const. Co., Inc.,
186 S.W.3d 571, 573 (Tex. 2006) (per curiam). Whether “one might reasonably presume or
believe” the defendant was served with process is irrelevant, the dispositive question is whether
the record demonstrates exact compliance with the governing rules. Spanton, 612 S.W.3d at 318;
see also Brookfield Funding, LLC v. Ramey & King Ins. Assocs., Inc., No. 02-25-00201-CV, 2025
WL 3558965, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 11, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that the
strict-compliance doctrine does not consider “whether the intended party received notice of the
lawsuit”).
In determining whether the record demonstrates strict compliance, courts may not infer a
person’s authority or capacity to receive service from surrounding circumstances when the record
does not expressly establish that authority. See Verlander Enters., Inc. v. Graham, 932 S.W.2d
259, 261–62 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, no writ) (refusing to presume that corporate defendant
was served when return of service did not state the served individual was an executive officer for
the defendant); see also WWLC Inv., LP v. Miraki, 624 S.W.3d 796, 799-800 (Tex. 2021) (per
curiam) (holding service ineffective where the person served was not shown to be a general partner
or registered agent, notwithstanding evidence that he was the sole individual involved with the
entity).
Process may be served on a corporation through its registered agent, president, or vice
president. TEX. BUS. ORGS. CODE §§ 5.201(b), .255(1). A corporation’s registered agent “is an
agent of the entity on whom may be served any process, notice, or demand required or permitted
by law to be served on that entity.” Id. § 5.201(b)(1) The registered agent may be an individual
who resides in Texas or an organization—provided it maintains a business office at the
corporation’s registered office address. Id. § 5.201(b). Corporations are required to continuously
-4-04-25-00689-CV
maintain a registered agent for service of process. Id. § 5.201(a). Because a corporate registered
agent necessarily acts through natural persons, the record must affirmatively demonstrate that the
individual who accepted service was authorized to act for the corporate registered agent. Reed
Elsevier, Inc. v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 180 S.W.3d 903, 905 (Tex. App.—
Dallas 2005, pet. denied). This principle is illustrated in National Med. Enters. of Tex., Inc. v.
Wedman, 676 S.W.2d 712 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1984, no writ). There, the court upheld service
where the return of service identified the individual served, Mary Lou Boring, as the registered
agent for the defendant’s corporate registered agent, C.T. Corporation System. Id. at 715. Thus,
on its face, the record established the authority of the individual accepting service. Id.
In this case, the return does not affirmatively demonstrate that the individual who accepted
service was authorized to act on behalf of Quest Liner’s registered agent. The return recites that
the process server delivered citation and the petition to “Jason Casey for QUEST LINER, INC.
through its Registered Agent, INCORP SERVICES, INC.” Although the return identifies Incorp
Services as Quest Liner’s registered agent, it does not identify Casey’s relationship with Incorp
Services or otherwise indicate that he was authorized to accept service on its behalf. That service
was effected at the registered agent’s address does not cure the return’s failure to identify Casey’s
authority to accept process. Verlander Enters., Inc., 932 S.W.2d at 261–62; WWLC Inv., LP, 624
S.W.3d at 799-800. The strict compliance doctrine requires that Casey’s authority to accept service
on behalf of Incorp Services affirmatively appear in the record.
In the absence of a presumption of valid service, we cannot fill this gap by assuming Casey
was authorized to act for Incorp Services merely because he accepted the citation at its office. See
-5-04-25-00689-CV
Shamrock, 728 S.W.3d at 698 (stating that under this de novo review “we presume nothing”). 2
Quest Liner’s second issue is sustained. 3
CONCLUSION
Having concluded that the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that Casey was
authorized to accept service on behalf of Incorp Services, Quest Liner’s registered agent, we hold
that the record fails to establish strict compliance with the rules governing service of process. We
therefore reverse the trial court’s default judgment and remand the cause to the trial court for
further proceedings.
Velia J. Meza, Justice
2
The Rodriguezes argue that the return strictly complies with Rule 107(b) because it identifies the person served and states the date, time, and place of service. But the issue is not whether the return contains the information enumerated in Rule 107(b) and is instead whether the record affirmatively demonstrates that service was effected on a person authorized to receive process. Verlander Enters., Inc., 932 S.W.2d at 261–62; WWLC Inv., LP, 624 S.W.3d at 799-800. A return may satisfy Rule 107(b)’s formal requirements yet still fail to establish valid service if it does not show the authority of the individual who accepted service. Id.
3
Because the resolution of Quest Liner’s second issue is dispositive of this appeal, we need not decide the remaining issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1 (“The court of appeals must hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition of the appeal.”).
-6-