LAWRENCE ENGINEERING, L.P. AND RAMSEY WADE BRADBERRY, Appellants v. SHABO, INC, A TEXAS CORPORATION D/B/A PAUL-WELCH ASSOCIATES, Appellee

AFFIRM and Opinion Filed April 29, 2009
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-07-00934-CV
............................
LAWRENCE ENGINEERING, L.P. AND RAMSEY WADE BRADBERRY, Appellants
V.
SHABO, INC, A TEXAS CORPORATION D/B/A PAUL-WELCH ASSOCIATES, Appellee
 
.............................................................
On Appeal from the 192nd District Court
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DC-06-11736
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Bridges, O'Neill, and FitzGerald
Opinion By Justice O'Neill
        In this restricted appeal, appellants Lawrence Engineering, L.P. and Ramsey Wade Bradberry appeal the trial court's entry of default judgments against them.   See Footnote 1  In a single issue, appellants assert the trial court erred in entering the default judgments because they were not properly served. We affirm.
        Appellee Shabo, Inc. d/b/a Paul-Welch Associates filed suit on November 15, 2006 against appellants alleging breach of contract, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and requesting attorney fees for funds it allowed appellants to borrow. On November 16, 2006, Ramsey Wade Bradberry and Lawrence Engineering, L.P. were personally served citations. The citations and officer's returns were filed on December 5, 2006. Appellants failed to answer the lawsuit.
        On February 19, 2007, the trial court entered default judgment against Bradberry and awarded appellee $147,346.50 in damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, and $5,000 in attorney fees. On the same day, it entered default judgment against Lawrence Engineering, L.P. and awarded $137, 991.39 in damages, prejudgment interest, costs, and $5,000 in attorney fees. Appellants timely filed restricted appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1(c), 30. In a single issue, appellants contends the trial court improperly granted default judgments because they were not properly served as evidenced by the recitals in the officer's return.
        A default judgment cannot withstand direct attack by a defendant who complains he was not served in strict compliance with applicable requirements. Wilson v. Dunn, 800 S.W.2d 833, 836 (Tex. 1990); Reed Elsevier, Inc. v. Carrollton-Farmers Branch Indep. Sch. Dist., 180 S.W.3d 903, 905 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2005, pet. denied). In a restricted appeal, defective service of process constitutes error apparent on the face of the record requiring reversal. Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 153 (Tex. 1994) (per curiam). Further, there are no presumptions in favor of valid issuance, service, and return of citation. Reed Elsevier, Inc., 180 S.W.3d at 905; see also Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. Lack of compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure renders the attempted service of process invalid and of no effect. All Commercial Floors, Inc. v. Barton & Rasor, 97 S.W.3d 723, 726 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2003, no pet.). Likewise, the return of service has long been considered prima facie evidence of the facts recited therein. Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152.
        Here, the petition states Lawrence Engineering, L.P. is a domestic limited partnership organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas. It further states Lawrence Engineering, L.P. may be served with process by serving its registered agent, P.B.H.G. at 12500 Schroeder, Dallas County, Dallas, Texas 75243. The petition also states Ramsey Bradberry is a resident of Texas and a general partner of Lawrence Engineering, L.P. and can be served at 2420 Sweeping Meadow Lane, Cedar Hill, Dallas County, Texas 75104.
        We start by analyzing service of appellant Ramsey Bradberry. The citation is addressed to Ramsey Wade Bradberry. The officer's return specifically states Ramsey Wade Bradberry was personally served at 8:35 a.m. on November 20, 2006. As stated above, the return of service has long been considered prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein. Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. Appellant Bradberry has presented nothing to rebut this prima facie evidence. Although he asserts in his brief that he could not have been personally served because he was “at work at his full time job at the IBM campus in Coppell all day,” he provides no record citation supporting his self-serving explanation, and we have found no such evidence in the record. As such, we do not consider it. Thus, because the officer's return is prima facie evidence of personal service, we conclude appellant Bradberry was properly served with citation. Therefore, the trial court properly entered default judgment against him when he failed to answer the lawsuit.
        We now consider appellant Lawrence Engineering, L.P.'s default judgment. The citation is addressed to “Lawrence Engineering, L.P. serving its registered agent, P.B.H.G.” Here, the officer's return states “P.B.H.G. (Ronnie N. Pleasant, Sr.) Registered Agent for Lawrence Engineering L.P” was personally served at 8:35 a.m. on November 16, 2006. Appellant Lawrence Engineering, L.P. specifically asserts if a person was served on behalf of or as an agent of P.B.H.G. the record fails to reflect that, and it is mandatory it do so. We disagree with appellant's argument. The officer's return shows that Ronnie N. Pleasant, Sr. was personally served, and the original petition states he is a general partner for Lawrence Engineering, L.P. See Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 153. n.1 (noting return is prima facie evidence of a corporate officer's status). Article 6132a-1, section 1.08(a) of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated provides that “[e]ach general partner and the registered agent of a limited partnership are agents of the limited partnership on whom may be served any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served on a limited partnership.” Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132-a, § 1.08(a) (Vernon Supp. 2008); 14850 Quorum Assoc., Ltd. v. Moore Bus. Forms, Inc., 7 S.W.3d 166, 168 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1998, no pet.). Thus, as a general partner, Ronnie N. Pleasant, Sr. was authorized to receive service on appellant's behalf, and the officer's return is prima facie evidence of this service. Primate Constr., Inc., 884 S.W.2d at 152. Because appellee properly served a general partner on behalf of the limited partnership and appellant Lawrence Engineering, L.P. failed to answer, the trial court properly entered default judgment against it.
        Having concluded the trial court properly entered default judgments against both appellants, we overrule appellants' sole issue on appeal. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          MICHAEL J. O'NEILL
                                                          JUSTICE
 
070934F.P05
 
Footnote 1 The style of the suit below also included Ronnie Pleasant, Ronnie N. Pleasant, Sr., Timothy Gordon, and Adrian Hayes. However, our record does not include any default judgments entered against them nor does it include any notices of appeal for these individuals. Thus, we only consider the default judgments challenged in the notices of appeal by appellant Bradberry and Lawrence Engineering, L.P.