Shamrock Enterprises, LLC d/b/a FRSTeam Gulfcoast/LA v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, 24-0581, January 16, 2026.
On appeal from Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas
Synopsis
A no-answer default judgment obtained through Secretary-of-State substituted service will not survive restricted appeal unless the face of the record affirmatively shows strict compliance with the forwarding requirements in Business Organizations Code § 5.253. Here, even assuming the defendant was amenable to SOS service, the record did not demonstrate that process was forwarded to the entity’s “most recent address on file with the Secretary of State,” so the default judgment had to be vacated and the case remanded.
Relevance to Family Law
Texas family law litigators routinely rely on default judgments—often in divorces, SAPCRs, enforcement actions, and post-decree modifications—when a respondent does not answer. This opinion is a reminder that when you lean on substituted service mechanisms (including Secretary-of-State service in cases involving business entities tied to marital estates, out-of-state respondents doing business in Texas, or entity respondents in fraudulent-transfer/turnover style ancillary claims), the appellate posture of a restricted appeal is unforgiving: service must be proved, not presumed, and the record must show strict statutory compliance on its face. If your default depends on SOS service, you must build a record that makes it impossible for the reviewing court to say, “the file doesn’t show forwarding to the most recent address on file.”
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Top Notch Movers sued Shamrock Enterprises (an Alabama-based LLC) in Texas to recover more than $170,000 for unpaid moving services performed in the aftermath of Hurricane Laura. Top Notch pursued substituted service through the Texas Secretary of State, alleging Shamrock was amenable to such service under Business Organizations Code § 5.251(1)(A) (i.e., the Secretary serves as agent when a foreign entity is required to register but fails to maintain a Texas registered agent/office).
Top Notch’s petition identified Shamrock’s “principal office” as a Foley, Alabama address and requested issuance of citation through the Secretary of State using that address. The record included the Secretary’s Whitney certificate stating the citation and petition were forwarded to Shamrock at the Foley address, but the mailing came back as “Return to Sender, Vacant, Unable to Forward.” Shamrock did not answer. Top Notch moved for default judgment, certifying the Foley location as Shamrock’s last known mailing address, and the trial court signed a default judgment awarding damages, fees, and costs. The clerk later mailed the judgment to the same address; it was also returned undeliverable.
Months later, Shamrock filed a restricted appeal attacking service. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning in part that Shamrock was amenable to SOS service and that the Whitney certificate was “irrebuttable proof” of proper service. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed.
Issues Decided
The Supreme Court decided whether the face of the record demonstrated strict compliance with the Business Organizations Code’s Secretary-of-State service requirements—specifically, whether the record affirmatively showed that the Secretary forwarded process to the defendant entity’s “most recent address on file with the Secretary of State” as required by § 5.253.
Rules Applied
Restricted appeals remain a potent post-judgment remedy against no-answer defaults. The Court reiterated core, default-judgment service principles: In a restricted appeal, error must be apparent on the face of the record, and when service is challenged, proper service is not presumed and must be affirmatively demonstrated in the record. The Court relied on familiar authorities emphasizing strict compliance in the default context, including Spanton v. Bellah, McKanna v. Edgar, Hubicki v. Festina, and Primate Construction, Inc. v. Silver.
On the statutory side, the Court focused on the Business Organizations Code scheme for SOS substituted service. Even where § 5.251 arguably makes the Secretary of State the agent for service, § 5.253 requires the Secretary to forward process to the entity at its “most recent address … on file with the secretary of state.” That forwarding detail is not a technicality; it is a jurisdictional linchpin when the judgment is by default and later attacked.
Application
The Court intentionally assumed—without deciding—that Shamrock was amenable to SOS service under § 5.251(1)(A). That move matters: it allowed the Court to center the analysis on what wins or loses many default fights on restricted appeal—what the clerk’s record actually shows.
The record contained a Whitney certificate showing that the Secretary forwarded the documents to the Foley, Alabama address provided by Top Notch, and that the mailing was returned as vacant/undeliverable. But the statutory requirement is not merely “forward it somewhere the plaintiff thinks is correct.” The statute requires forwarding to the entity’s most recent address on file with the Secretary of State. The face of the record did not affirmatively demonstrate that the Foley address used for forwarding was, in fact, the “most recent address on file” with the Secretary.
The lower courts effectively filled that gap by presuming compliance from the existence of the Whitney certificate. The Supreme Court rejected that approach. A Whitney certificate proves certain things (that the Secretary performed forwarding as described), but it does not cure a record that fails to show that the forwarding went to the statutorily required address. In a restricted appeal, presumptions run the other direction: If the record is silent or incomplete on a required element of service, the default cannot stand.
Holding
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that—even assuming Shamrock was amenable to Secretary-of-State substituted service under Business Organizations Code § 5.251(1)(A)—the face of the record did not demonstrate strict compliance with § 5.253 because it did not affirmatively show the Secretary forwarded process to Shamrock’s most recent address on file with the Secretary of State. Because proper service must be proved and cannot be presumed in a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment, the default judgment was vacated and the case remanded.
Practical Application
For Texas family law litigators, the operational lesson is simple: if you intend to default someone and your service path involves a statutory forwarding requirement (Secretary of State, certain long-arm contexts, or any “forward to last known/most recent on file” language), you must treat the record as your trial witness on appeal. The restricted-appeal lens is not about what you “know” to be true or what you could prove later—it’s about whether the clerk’s record already shows strict compliance.
That is especially relevant in (1) divorces with business-entity parties or entity intervenors (e.g., closely held LLCs used to hold marital assets), (2) fraudulent transfer/alter ego allegations pleaded alongside property-division disputes, (3) enforcement actions where an obligor has moved out of state and service is contested, and (4) any case where you are tempted to “move fast” to default after a returned mailing. If your proof of service is missing the statutory address predicate, the judgment is a sitting target for a restricted appeal—often months later, after you have begun collection, QDRO work, or property turnover.
Strategically, this case also counsels restraint: If your Whitney certificate shows “Vacant, Unable to Forward,” and the record does not independently nail down the “most recent address on file” requirement, the better play is usually to fix service and re-set the clock rather than press for a default that may be reversed as voidable on the face of the record.
Checklists
Secretary-of-State Service Checklist (Entity Respondent)
- Confirm the statutory basis for SOS service (e.g., BOC § 5.251(1)(A)) and plead the specific facts supporting amenability (why registration/registered agent requirements apply).
- Obtain and file documentation showing the entity’s “most recent address on file with the Secretary of State” at the time of issuance/forwarding (do not rely on assumptions or the petition’s “principal office” allegation).
- Ensure the citation request/instructions to the clerk use the same address that is shown to be the “most recent address on file.”
- File the Whitney certificate and verify it reflects forwarding to the statutorily required address, not merely an address supplied by counsel.
- If mail is returned, assess immediately whether the record still proves strict compliance with the statutory forwarding requirement; if not, cure service before moving for default.
Default-Judgment Record-Building Checklist (Restricted-Appeal Proofing)
- Treat every required element of service as something the clerk’s record must show affirmatively.
- Cross-check: petition allegations, citation, SOS request letter, forwarding fee submission, and Whitney certificate all align on the statutorily required address.
- File any supporting Secretary-of-State records needed to establish that the forwarding address used was the “most recent address on file.”
- Before prove-up, review the file exactly as an appellate court will: if a required statutory fact is missing from the face of the record, assume reversal risk is high.
- Consider delaying default if there is any ambiguity in the service record; a “quick default” can become a “late reversal.”
Family-Law Scenario Checklist: Divorce/SAPCR Cases Involving Entities or Out-of-State Service
- When suing or serving an LLC/corporation tied to the marital estate, decide early whether SOS service is contemplated and build the address predicate from day one.
- In enforcement/modification matters with hard-to-locate respondents, avoid service shortcuts that create a thin record; restricted appeals are common in no-answer defaults.
- If a mailing comes back undeliverable, pause and re-evaluate whether your service method satisfies strict compliance on the face of the record, rather than trying to “prove up anyway.”
- Document diligence and statutory compliance in filings that become part of the clerk’s record (not just internal notes or correspondence).
Citation
Shamrock Enterprises, LLC d/b/a FRSTeam Gulfcoast/LA v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, No. 24-0581 (Tex. Jan. 16, 2026).
Full Opinion
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1461979/240581.pdf
Share this content: