# Shamrock Enters., LLC v. Top Notch Movers, LLC Supreme Court of Texas, No. 24-0581 **Shamrock Enters., LLC v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, No. 24-0581 (Tex. Jan. 16, 2026). Holding: For a no-answer default judgment to survive a restricted appeal, the face of the record must show that the Secretary of State forwarded process to the address the substituted-service statute requires, the Secretary's Whitney certificate establishes only that process was forwarded to the address provided and is not proof that it was the statutorily required address, and nothing in this record identifies the Foley address as Shamrock's most recent address on file.** Practice areas: civil procedure, business organizations ## Key issues - A no-answer default judgment against an Alabama LLC was reversed on restricted appeal because the record did not show process was forwarded to the statutorily required address, the most recent address on file with the Secretary of State; the lower courts wrongly presumed it was. - The Court vacated the default judgment and remanded, with five Justices joining Chief Justice Blacklock's concurrence. ## Factual History After Hurricane Laura, Top Notch Movers, a Texas-based LLC, provided moving services in Alabama and Louisiana to Alabama-based Shamrock Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a FRSTeam Gulfcoast/LA, and by letter to Shamrock at a location in Summerdale, Alabama, demanded payment of more than $170,000 for unpaid invoices (Opinion, PDF p. 2). Weeks later Top Notch sued Shamrock in Texas for nonpayment but gave a different address for service, identifying Shamrock's "principal office" as a location in Foley, Alabama, and alleging that Shamrock was required to register with the Secretary of State but had not appointed a registered agent, so the Secretary was its agent for service under Business Organizations Code Section 5.251(1)(A) (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 5). The Secretary's Whitney certificate said process was forwarded to the Foley address, but the mailing came back "Return to Sender, Vacant, Unable to Forward" (Opinion, PDF pp. 2-3). ## Procedural History When Shamrock did not appear, Top Notch promptly moved for default judgment, certifying the Foley location as Shamrock's "last known mailing address," and the trial court rendered a default judgment for actual damages, attorney's fees, and costs; the judgment, mailed to the same address, was also returned undeliverable (Opinion, PDF p. 3). Several months later Shamrock filed a restricted appeal, and the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg) affirmed, holding that Shamrock was amenable to substituted service and that the Whitney certificate was irrebuttable proof it was properly served (Opinion, PDF p. 3). The vehicle in this Court is a petition for review filed by Shamrock, argued October 8, 2025, and decided January 16, 2026 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 12). ## Issues Presented Shamrock presents whether the trial court erred in entering, and the court of appeals in affirming, a no-answer default judgment against a nonresident when the plaintiff failed to plead facts showing amenability to substituted service and when there was prima facie proof that it failed to serve the nonresident in strict compliance with the statute (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 12). The Court framed the question as whether the record shows valid substituted service under a statute requiring process to be forwarded to the defendant's "most recent address . . . on file with the secretary of state" (Opinion, PDF pp. 1-2). ## Standard(s) of Review In a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment, error must appear on the face of the record, and when service is challenged it must be proved, not presumed; if the record does not affirmatively demonstrate proper service, the default judgment cannot stand (Opinion, PDF pp. 3-4). ## Legal Arguments **Whether the record shows valid service.** **Shamrock (Petitioner):** Texas-based Top Notch sued an Alabama entity over a contract performed in Louisiana and Alabama, made no showing that Shamrock was amenable to substituted service on the Secretary of State, never tried to serve it otherwise, and gave the Secretary an out-of-date address, so Shamrock predictably did not receive notice (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 14; Reply to Response to Petition filed (Petitioner), PDF p. 5). **Top Notch (Respondent):** Service strictly complied with Section 5.251(1)(A) because Shamrock, a foreign filing entity transacting business in Texas without a registered agent, could be served through the Secretary, whose Whitney certificate shows the citation was forwarded to the most recent address on file, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 9; Response to Petition (Respondent), PDF p. 15). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case Shamrock argued that a court has "no more solemn judicial obligation" than seeing that no litigant is saddled with a judgment without notice and a hearing, and that the lower courts erred in presuming service was proper on this record (Petition for Review (Petitioner), PDF p. 14). ## Oral Argument - **Face of the record.** Asked what the face-of-the-record error is without extrinsic evidence, Shamrock's counsel said the demand letter in the filing, with three different addresses, shows service was ineffective. (Oral Argument, 0:05:20) - **Different addresses.** Asked whether demand letters sent to other addresses show facial error, Shamrock's counsel knew of no case so holding, but said it shows the plaintiff knew other addresses. (Oral Argument, 0:04:13) - **Home office.** Asked whether the plaintiff must show the forwarding address was the home office, Shamrock's counsel said at least plead it, and nothing in the record or petition alleges it. (Oral Argument, 0:10:41) - **Returned unforwardable.** Asked about the return, Top Notch's counsel agreed the mail came back unable to forward and noted the demand letter went to three entities, two not parties here. (Oral Argument, 0:17:09) - **Interstate commerce.** Asked how to ignore section 17.042 when reading the list of activities that are not transacting business, Top Notch's counsel said no cases under 5.251 tie service to interstate commerce. (Oral Argument, 0:29:30) - **Preservation.** Top Notch's counsel said the argument should have been raised in the court of appeals to preserve it for this Court. (Oral Argument, 0:26:49) ## Practice Area Tags civil-procedure, business-organizations ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Thirteenth Court of Appeals (Corpus Christi-Edinburg) in a restricted appeal from a no-answer default judgment; argued October 8, 2025, and decided January 16, 2026 (Opinion, PDF pp. 1, 3, 12). ## Amicus Involvement None ## Holding For a no-answer default judgment to survive a restricted appeal, the face of the record must show that the Secretary of State forwarded process to the address the substituted-service statute requires, the Secretary's Whitney certificate establishes only that process was forwarded to the address provided and is not proof that it was the statutorily required address, and nothing in this record identifies the Foley address as Shamrock's most recent address on file (Opinion, PDF pp. 6-12). The Court assumed without deciding that Shamrock was amenable to substituted service under the statute (Opinion, PDF pp. 2, 6). ## Court's Reasoning **Amenability assumed.** Shamrock contended it was engaged in interstate commerce and so was not transacting business in Texas or subject to substituted service, but the Court did not resolve that dispute because error requiring reversal was apparent in a different regard (Opinion, PDF pp. 4-6). **The required address.** Section 5.253 requires the Secretary to send process to "the most recent address of the entity on file with the secretary of state," and the record must reflect, by allegation or otherwise, that the Foley address was that address; the Court cannot presume the address Top Notch provided is the one the statute requires (Opinion, PDF pp. 5-7). **Whitney certificates.** *Wachovia Bank v. Gilliam* forecloses reliance on a Whitney certificate to presume compliance: the certificate is irrebuttable proof that process was forwarded as addressed, but it does not establish that the forwarding address was correct, and the petition's description of the Foley address as Shamrock's "principal office" and "last known mailing address" does not designate the address the Code requires (Opinion, PDF pp. 7-10). The Court disapproved intermediate-court decisions that gave Whitney certificates more weight than *Wachovia Bank* allows (Opinion, PDF pp. 10-11). **Default judgments disfavored.** No-answer default judgments cannot be sustained absent meticulous adherence to service requirements, and a failure to show strict compliance renders service invalid (Opinion, PDF p. 11). Having chosen Section 5.251(1)(A), Top Notch could not mix and match among substituted-service statutes (Opinion, PDF p. 9). **Concurrence.** Chief Justice Blacklock, joined by Justices Lehrmann, Busby, Young, and Sullivan, agreed the record does not show strict compliance but wrote that even if the statute had been followed, the United States and Texas Constitutions would still require more, because due process demands notice reasonably calculated to apprise parties of the suit, and a mere gesture is not due process (Blacklock, C.J., concurring, PDF pp. 1-2). ## Disposition Court of appeals' judgment reversed, the trial court's default judgment vacated, and the case remanded to the trial court for further proceedings (Opinion, PDF p. 12). ## Vote Breakdown Justice Devine delivered the opinion of the Court (Opinion, PDF p. 1). Chief Justice Blacklock filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Lehrmann, Busby, Young, and Sullivan (Opinion, PDF p. 1). --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/24-0581. AI-generated summary of the Court's opinion, orders and the parties' briefs, with pin cites to the page of each document; verify against the Court's own documents at search.txcourts.gov.