Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Eagle Commercial Builders, Inc. appealed a default judgment in favor of Milam Co. Painting, Inc., contending that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. Eagle argued that the service on its registered agent, Deborah M. Jones, should have occurred at the registered office rather than her home address. The court, however, found that service on a registered agent at an alternate address is adequate and that the Business Corporation Act does not mandate service at the registered office. Eagle also challenged the trial court's award of 18% pre-judgment interest starting before the filing of the original petition, but the court upheld this decision, noting compliance with Texas Property Code section 28.004. The court overruled all of Eagle's issues, including those related to service limitations and interest calculation, affirming the trial court's judgment in Milam's favor. The ruling emphasizes the adequacy of service on registered agents and the permissibility of pre-judgment interest calculations in accordance with statutory provisions.
Legal Issues Addressed
Award of Pre-Judgment Interestsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's decision to permit pre-judgment interest prior to the filing of the original petition was upheld based on the Texas Property Code.
Reasoning: The applicable Texas Property Code section 28.004 permits interest at 1.5% per month from the due date of payment.
Personal Jurisdiction and Service Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Eagle's argument that service must occur at the registered office was rejected, as the statute does not impose such geographic restrictions.
Reasoning: The court finds that the statute, by its wording, does not require service at the registered office, nor has any precedent established such a limitation.
Service of Process on Corporationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that service on a registered agent at an alternate address is sufficient for jurisdiction, even if not at the registered office.
Reasoning: The court ultimately affirmed the trial court's judgment, noting that service on the registered agent at an alternate address is sufficient for jurisdiction.