# Lohmann v. EWC Franchise, LLC Supreme Court of Texas, No. 25-1068 **Lohmann v. EWC Franchise, LLC, No. 25-1068, is before the Supreme Court of Texas. Key issue: Whether a court of appeals that reverses a default judgment against some co-defendants for defective service must reverse it as to every defendant (including one that was properly served), or may affirm in part under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(b) where the judgment is separable.** Practice areas: civil procedure, legal ethics ## Key issues - Whether a court of appeals that reverses a default judgment against some co-defendants for defective service must reverse it as to every defendant (including one that was properly served), or may affirm in part under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 44.1(b) where the judgment is separable. - Whether a limited liability company "appears," and so is entitled to notice of the default-judgment hearing, when its non-lawyer member attends a hearing and acts for it with the trial court's apparent acquiescence. ## Factual History EWC Franchise, LLC, the franchisor of European Wax Center, domesticated a Florida judgment of $583,951.73 against George Lohmann Jr. and a related entity and pursued post-judgment garnishment; the garnishee later reduced the funds it reported holding to $48,579.62. Post-judgment discovery showed that in October 2023 Lohmann moved hundreds of thousands of dollars from his personal account to DOC Properties, LLC, then to Midland European Waxing I, LLC (MEW), and then to a personal brokerage account; EWC alleges the transfers were made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 9). EWC sued Lohmann and DOC on December 28, 2023 for injunctive relief and damages for fraudulent transfer, and added MEW and Midland Double Dave's Pizza, LLC by amendment on January 26, 2024 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 11-12). ## Procedural History The parties dispute service. EWC says, and describes the court of appeals as finding, that Lohmann and DOC were personally served at Lohmann's residence, DOC's registered address, on January 9, 2024, and that neither appeared at the first injunction hearing on January 24; DOC says EWC obtained substitute service, including posting at Lohmann's front gate, on February 2, 2024. At the February 9, 2024 injunction hearing in the 441st District Court of Midland County, Lohmann appeared without a lawyer and, in DOC's account, the court treated the other defendants, including DOC, as having appeared through him. On March 11, 2024 the court (Judge Jeff Robnett) rendered a final default judgment against all four defendants without a hearing, and DOC says nothing in the record shows notice of a hearing; the court denied Lohmann's motion for new trial on April 25, 2024 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 9-10; Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 12-13). The Eleventh Court of Appeals (Williams, J., joined by Bailey and Trotter, JJ.) reversed as to Lohmann, MEW, and Double Dave's but affirmed as to DOC. Lohmann v. EWC Franchise, LLC, No. 11-24-00095-CV, 2025 WL 2617721 (Tex. App.—Eastland Sept. 11, 2025, pet. filed); rehearing denied Oct. 16, 2025, 2025 WL 2933607 (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 8; Response to Petition, PDF pp. 12-13). DOC petitioned for review on December 1, 2025; EWC first waived a response, then responded at the Court's request on February 17, 2026. The Court requested merits briefs on May 1, 2026; DOC filed June 1, EWC June 22 and DOC replied July 7, 2026 (Docket). ## Issues Presented DOC presents two issues. (1) Should the default judgment against it be reversed where the default judgments against its co-defendants were reversed for lack of personal jurisdiction? (2) Should it be reversed because DOC was not given notice of the default hearing although the trial court assured the parties, without objection, that it had appeared through a corporate representative? (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF p. 10). EWC restates the issues as whether a court of appeals must reverse a default judgment as to all defendants when it reverses as to some for defendant-specific defects (no; Rule 44.1(b) requires tailored relief), and whether an LLC "appears," and is entitled to notice, when its non-attorney member merely attends a hearing (no) (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF p. 8). ## Legal Arguments **Petitioner (DOC Properties, LLC):** Because the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over co-defendants MEW and Double Dave's, it could enter only an interlocutory default judgment under Rule 240 until those defendants were dismissed or severed, and a final judgment under Rule 301 had to dispose of all parties; the judgment should therefore be reversed as to everyone, as courts such as Lytle v. Cunningham have held. The court of appeals wrongly limited that line of cases to restricted appeals. Alternatively, Rule 44.1(b) does not allow partial reversal because EWC's claims against all defendants are interwoven and interdependent. On the second issue, Lohmann appeared in court for DOC with the trial court's assurance and without objection from EWC, so DOC was entitled to notice of the default hearing, consistent with this Court's tradition that any appearance defeats a default without notice (Brief on the Merits (Petitioner), PDF pp. 13-18; Reply Brief (Petitioner), PDF pp. 2-7). **Respondent (EWC Franchise, LLC):** Rule 44.1(b), not Rules 240 or 301, governs the scope of relief on direct appeal, and requires reversing only the affected part of a judgment when the rest is separable without unfairness. DOC's liability arises from discrete transfers and independent claims, including fraudulent transfer and money had and received, so the judgment against DOC does not depend on the service defects as to others; finality is judged when judgment is rendered, and DOC's Rule 301 theory is new and fails. A legal entity may appear only through licensed counsel, a non-lawyer's presence has no legal effect as an appearance, and an entity that was served and did not answer is not entitled to notice of the default hearing under Rule 239 (Brief on the Merits (Respondent), PDF pp. 4-5, 8-19). ## Stated Reasons the Court Should Take the Case DOC argues the case raises questions of law important to the state's jurisprudence, including whether the one-judgment rule of Rule 240 applies only in restricted appeals, that the court of appeals committed an error of law of such importance that it should be corrected, and that the second issue involves the constitutional due process right to notice of a hearing (Petition for Review, PDF pp. 9, 11). EWC responds that the petition identifies no conflict among courts of appeals, no disagreement among the justices below, no statutory-construction or constitutional question, and presents a routine, fact-specific application of Rule 44.1(b) that is error correction outside the Court's discretionary review (Response to Petition, PDF pp. 12-14). ## Practice Area Tags civil-procedure, legal-ethics ## Procedural Posture/Vehicle Petition for review from the Eleventh Court of Appeals, which reversed a default judgment in part and affirmed it as to DOC Properties. The Court requested and received full merits briefing, including a reply, but has not yet granted the petition. ## Amicus Involvement None --- Source: The SCOTX Report, https://scotxreport.com/cases/25-1068. 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.