Jenna Tabakman v. Gary Tabakman, 24-0919, December 05, 2025.
On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth District of Texas
Synopsis
The Texas Supreme Court held that Jenna Tabakman met the three-element Craddock test, finding her failure to answer was not intentional or the product of conscious indifference, and that she established a meritorious defense without causing undue delay or injury to the respondent. The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for a new trial.
Relevance to Family Law
This decision reinforces the strong public policy favoring resolution on the merits in divorce litigation and provides practical guidance on how courts evaluate default-judgment challenges in family-law contexts. The opinion clarifies how Craddock’s first element is satisfied where a defendant lacked actual notice of service (including alternative service), promptly answered once aware, and presented a meritorious defense — a framework directly applicable to contested divorce, custody, and property disputes where service and notice are often contested and default relief can irreversibly affect parental rights and property division.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
After separating from her husband and moving to her parents’ home, Jenna Tabakman was told by Gary that he had filed for divorce. Months of unsuccessful personal service attempts led the trial court to authorize alternative service; the process server posted a citation, petition, and alternate-service order on the front door of the parents’ house. Jenna testified she assumed papers would be served in person, did not see the posted citation, and took no steps to avoid service. Unaware that the trial judge had orally rendered a default judgment at a hearing, Jenna retained counsel and, within three weeks of learning of the proceedings, filed an answer and a Craddock-based motion for new trial — some filings occurring before the default decree was signed. The trial court and the court of appeals denied relief, finding conscious indifference and potential injury to the respondent; the Supreme Court reversed.
Issues Decided
The Court decided whether (1) Tabakman satisfied the first Craddock element by showing her failure to answer was not intentional or the result of conscious indifference; (2) she established the remaining Craddock elements (a meritorious defense and that granting a new trial would not unduly delay or injure the respondent); and (3) whether any error regarding service warranted reversal (the Court concluded it would not address reversible error on service in detail).
Rules Applied
The Court applied the Craddock doctrine and its three-part test as articulated in Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. Comm’n Op. 1939), and its progeny: In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112 (Tex. 2006); Fidelity & Guaranty Ins. Co. v. Drewery Constr. Co., 186 S.W.3d 571 (Tex. 2006); Smith v. Babcock & Wilcox Constr. Co., 913 S.W.2d 467 (Tex. 1995); Sutherland v. Spencer, 376 S.W.3d 752 (Tex. 2012); Milestone Operating, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Corp., 388 S.W.3d 307 (Tex. 2012); and more recent authority emphasizing the disfavored nature of default judgments, including In re Lakeside Resort JV, LLC, 689 S.W.3d 916 (Tex. 2024). The Court referenced Texas Rules of Civil Procedure relevant to alternative service (TEX. R. CIV. P. 106(b)) and to post-default new-trial practice (TEX. R. CIV. P. 320).
Application
The Court examined why Tabakman did not appear. The dispositive narrative was that she lacked actual notice of alternative service and reasonably believed personal service would occur. Her testimony and conduct — including immediate consultation with counsel upon learning of the proceedings and filing an answer and new-trial motion before the decree was signed — furnished an explanation inconsistent with intentional failure to answer or conscious indifference. The Court emphasized that conscious indifference requires that a defendant knew of the suit and “did not care”; mere negligence or a mistake of law does not suffice to establish conscious indifference. Finding her factual assertions, if true, negated intentional or consciously indifferent conduct and were not effectively controverted so as to defeat Craddock relief, the Court held the first element met. The Court also found she had presented a meritorious defense and shown that relief would not unduly delay or injure the respondent, completing the Craddock test and mandating a new trial.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Jenna Tabakman satisfied all three Craddock elements, warranting a new trial. Specifically, the Court held that her unawareness of alternative service and prompt actions once informed negated intentional or consciously indifferent non-appearance. The Court further held that she offered a meritorious defense and established that granting a new trial would not result in undue delay or substantial injury to the opposing party. Accordingly, the Court reversed the court of appeals’ judgment and remanded the case to the trial court for a new trial. The Court declined to expand its analysis on the separate trial-court finding that service was proper, concluding that no reversible error on service required further discussion for purposes of this opinion.
Practical Application
For family-law practitioners, Tabakman is a reminder that courts expect rigorous fact development on default-judgment challenges and that defendants can prevail under Craddock where they lacked actual notice, promptly acted once informed, and present a colorable defense. Defendants should gather contemporaneous evidence of where they lived, whether posted notices were seen, and proof of prompt retention of counsel and filings. Plaintiffs seeking default relief must document service attempts meticulously, avoid treating oral renditions as final, and secure signed decrees only after ensuring actual notice where feasible. In custody and child-related disputes, the decision underscores heightened judicial reluctance to finalize defaults affecting parental rights without resolving notice conflicts and the underlying merits.
Checklists
Gather Your Evidence
- Timeline of separation, residence, and any moves.
- Declarations or affidavits from family members about whether posted papers were observed.
- Process-server logs, photos, and copy of the alternative-service order.
- Records showing when client first learned of the suit and when counsel was retained.
- Copies of any communications from the opposing party indicating a filing or attempts at service.
Responding After Learning of a Default or Oral Rendition
- File an answer immediately upon learning of proceedings.
- File a Craddock motion for new trial without delay and set it for hearing.
- Attach affidavits and exhibits that negate intentional or consciously indifferent conduct.
- Preserve emergency remedies (e.g., temporary orders) if custody or child safety is implicated.
For Plaintiffs Seeking Default in Family Cases
- Maintain detailed, contemporaneous proof of personal service attempts (dates, times, attempts to contact, addresses).
- If alternative service is sought, obtain a clear court order and document compliance with the order’s terms.
- Consider seeking temporary orders or setting hearing dates to limit ex parte risks prior to entry of a default decree.
- Where parental rights are at stake, evaluate alternatives to default to reduce reversal risk.
Challenging Alternative Service
- Examine and litigate the adequacy of the alternative-service order before final default relief.
- Collect evidence that posted notices were actually delivered or seen (photos, witness affidavits).
- If client claims no notice, prepare to show immediate remedial steps taken upon learning of suit.
Citation
Jenna Tabakman v. Gary Tabakman, No. 24-0919, Supreme Court of Texas, Dec. 5, 2025.
Full Opinion
Full opinion (Supreme Court of Texas) — http://docs.texasappellate.com/scotx/op/24-0919/2025-12-05.pc.pdf
Share this content: