Tatum v. Noble, 14-25-00409-CV, February 24, 2026.
On appeal from the 245th District Court of Harris County.
Synopsis
The Fourteenth Court of Appeals held that a respondent who is properly served but fails to appear for a protective order hearing is not entitled to new formal notice when the case is transferred to a different district court following a judge’s recusal. The court further clarified that technical deficiencies in administrative forms, such as the “Consent to Publish to Registry,” do not impact a trial court’s subject-matter jurisdiction.
Relevance to Family Law
In the high-volume environment of Texas family courts—particularly in counties with multiple district courts—judicial recusals and case transfers are common. This opinion provides critical clarity for practitioners regarding the persistence of notice and the distinction between jurisdictional requirements and administrative formalities. For litigators seeking default protective orders, this decision removes the burden of re-serving an absent respondent when a case moves between courtrooms within the same county under “exchange of benches” authority. Conversely, for those challenging such orders, it underscores that a strategic non-appearance or a pending judicial complaint offers no protection against the consequences of a transfer under the Texas Government Code.
Case Summary
Fact Summary
Daphne Noble filed an application for a protective order against Wonisha Tatum in the 280th District Court of Harris County. Tatum was personally served with a citation and a show-cause order requiring her appearance at 9:00 a.m. on May 2, 2025. Tatum filed a judicial complaint against the presiding judge of the 280th but did not file a motion to recuse and, notably, failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. When the case was called, the presiding judge recused herself sua sponte to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The Regional Presiding Judge immediately transferred the case to the 245th District Court.
Upon the hearing reconvening in the 245th, the judge ensured the bailiff called Tatum’s name outside the courtroom to confirm she had not been lost during the transfer between floors. When Tatum remained absent, the court proceeded with the hearing and signed a default protective order. Tatum subsequently appealed, arguing that the order was void because she received no notice of the hearing in the 245th District Court and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because Noble failed to complete certain administrative forms.
Issues Decided
The court addressed two primary issues: first, whether the failure to complete administrative “Registry” forms deprives a trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over a protective order application. Second, whether due process requires new formal service of process or notice when a hearing is moved to a different district court within the same county after a respondent has already defaulted on the original notice.
Rules Applied
The court relied on Texas Family Code § 82.001, which establishes that filing an application for a protective order invokes the court’s jurisdiction, and § 85.006, which allows for binding orders against non-attending respondents who received proper notice. Regarding the transfer, the court applied Texas Government Code § 24.303 and § 74.094. These statutes permit district judges in counties with two or more district courts to exchange benches, transfer cases, and hear any part of any case pending in another court without the necessity of a formal transfer. The court also cited Primate Construction, Inc. v. Silver for the rule that a return of service is prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein.
Application
The court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge by distinguishing between the statutory requirements of a protective order application and the administrative requirements of the district clerk’s office. While forms like the “Consent to Publish to Registry” serve administrative functions, they are not jurisdictional prerequisites under Chapter 82 of the Family Code.
Regarding the notice issue, the court found that Tatum was served with a citation that met all statutory requirements, including the time, date, and initial location of the hearing. Her failure to appear at the 280th District Court at the appointed time meant she had already defaulted on her right to be present. The court emphasized that under the Texas Government Code, any district judge in Harris County may hear a matter pending in another district court. Because the hearing in the 245th District Court was a continuation of the hearing for which Tatum had already received notice and failed to attend, the change in courtroom did not trigger a requirement for new formal service. The court noted that the trial judge’s decision to have the bailiff call Tatum’s name in the new hallway was a sufficient measure to ensure due process.
Holding
The court held that subject-matter jurisdiction is invoked by the filing of the application itself; administrative omissions or the failure to file auxiliary forms do not deprive the trial court of the power to render a protective order.
The court further held that a respondent who fails to appear after being properly served with notice of a hearing is not entitled to new formal notice if the hearing is reconvened or transferred to another court in the same county. The original notice remains sufficient to support a default judgment under the “exchange of benches” provisions of the Texas Government Code.
Practical Application
This case reinforces the “procedural finality” of service in family law litigation. If a practitioner is representing a petitioner and the case is transferred or a judge recuses mid-docket, there is no requirement to reset and re-serve if the respondent is already a “no-show.” To protect the record against future due process challenges, practitioners should request that the trial judge have the bailiff call the respondent’s name in the new courtroom hallway, as was done here. For those representing respondents, this case serves as a warning: a pending judicial complaint or a courtroom transfer does not stay the obligation to appear. A party who ignores a noticed hearing does so at their own peril, regardless of which judge eventually signs the order.
Checklists
Securing a Default Protective Order Following a Transfer
- Confirm the return of service is filed and identifies the original courtroom, date, and time correctly.
- Ensure the record reflects that the case was initially called in the noticed courtroom and the respondent failed to appear.
- If the case is moved to another courtroom, ask the new judge to have the bailiff call the respondent’s name three times on the record in the new location.
- Reference the Texas Government Code “exchange of benches” authority in the final order to clarify the transition between the noticed court and the rendering court.
Defending Against Default and Preserving Error
- Advise clients that filing a judicial complaint or grievance does not excuse an appearance or stay the hearing.
- Verify whether any “missing” forms in the application are truly jurisdictional or merely administrative before asserting a 12(b)(1) equivalent challenge.
- If a client misses a hearing due to a courtroom transfer, the motion for new trial must be supported by competent evidence (affidavits) explaining the failure to appear; mere assertions in a motion are insufficient to controvert a return of service.
Citation
Tatum v. Noble, __ S.W.3d __ (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2026, no pet.) (No. 14-25-00409-CV).
Full Opinion
The full opinion can be found here: View Opinion
~~62f1a710-c0b6-4d28-8090-72aea68c308d~~
Share this content: