Served in error

[LdiJ]

Perhaps you would care to read Rule 166(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure - Motions for Summary Judgment - and respond to the following:

1. Wherein lies the language in that Rule that contemplates that a motion for summary judgment is the proper vehicle to resolve the issue of the “proper party defendant” or the question of "personal jurisdiction" over the defendant?

2. How could the OP file such a motion, in any event, without making a general appearance and thus voluntarily submitting to the jurisdiction of the Texas court?

For your much-needed enlightenment in contrast to your unschooled guesswork, the summary judgment process is designed to address the factual merits of the parties’ respective claims and/or defenses as they relate to applicable substantive law.

(Incidentally, if it is your belief that who might be the correct party?)

While I agree that OHR's wording was very poor, the OP seems to be indicating that this is a case of mistaken identity, or identity theft.

Therefore somehow she has to get it across to the courts that she is not the person that they are seeking, as well as TX not having personal jurisdiction over her.

I really think that she needs an attorney to handle it, to make certain that she doesn't accidentally cede anything to TX.

 

[quincy]

While I agree that OHR's wording was very poor, the OP seems to be indicating that this is a case of mistaken identity, or identity theft.

Therefore somehow she has to get it across to the courts that she is not the person that they are seeking, as well as TX not having personal jurisdiction over her.

I really think that she needs an attorney to handle it, to make certain that she doesn't accidentally cede anything to TX.

Even if the daughter-in-law has a default judgment entered against her in Texas, it won't stand - if in fact she has been misidentified as the defendant in the action. See Callan v Bartlett Elec. Coop, 423 SW 2d 149, 156 (Texas Civ App Austin 1968) and Thomas v Cactus Drilling Corp, 405 SW 2d 214, 216 (Texas Civ App Austin 1966), which have good explanations on misnamed defendants and misidentified defendants (and the differences in how these are handled).

That said, it is a lot easier for the daughter-in-law to act now and respond to the suit, before such a judgment exists.

I think Zigner's recommendation, to call the plaintiff's attorney, is a good first step to take. And/or the daughter-in-law could speak with an attorney in her area to review the complaint, make sure that it is in fact a misidentification, make sure that no one with the same name is known or related to the daughter-in-law and aware of the suit, and go from there.

 

[tranquility]

Even if the daughter-in-law has a default judgment entered against her in Texas, it won't stand - if in fact she has been misidentified as the defendant in the action. See Callan v Bartlett Elec. Coop, 423 SW 2d 149, 156 (Texas Civ App Austin 1968) and Thomas v Cactus Drilling Corp, 405 SW 2d 214, 216 (Texas Civ App Austin 1966), which have good explanations on misnamed defendants and misidentified defendants (and the differences in how these are handled).

That said, it is a lot easier for the daughter-in-law to act now and respond to the suit, before such a judgment exists.

I think Zigner's recommendation, to call the plaintiff's attorney, is a good first step to take. And/or the daughter-in-law could file a motion. And/or the daughter-in-law could speak with an attorney in her area to review the complaint, make sure that it is in fact a misidentification, make sure that no one with the same name is known or related to the daughter-in-law and aware of the suit, and go from there.

I think latigo mentioned why "filing a motion" might not be a good idea. It gives the court jurisdiction over the party. Such a motion needs to be made by a person making a special appearance to avoid consenting to jurisdiction.

 

[quincy]

I think latigo mentioned why "filing a motion" might not be a good idea. It gives the court jurisdiction over the party. Such a motion needs to be made by a person making a special appearance to avoid consenting to jurisdiction.

You're right, as was latigo and as was LdiJ. I will edit my posts so they do not confuse mactoolsix. Thanks.

 

[mactoolsix]

The final solution

In response to all those that submitted advice, the case was resolved without having to go to Texas and appear in court.

She did two things:
a) Reached out to the plaintiff with the research I found on the other [same name] with a threat to counter sue. Plantiff said he would dismiss me.
b) Got a notarized response and declaration with my answer and my research.
The plaintiff dismissed me.

Thanks to all!!!

 

[Zigner]

In response to all those that submitted advice, the case was resolved without having to go to Texas and appear in court.

She did two things:
a) Reached out to the plaintiff with the research I found on the other [same name] with a threat to counter sue. Plantiff said he would dismiss me.
b) Got a notarized response and declaration with my answer and my research.
The plaintiff dismissed me.

Thanks to all!!!

Glad it worked out - but I thought it was your daughter that was served...?

 

[quincy]

... Plantiff said he would dismiss me.
b) Got a notarized response and declaration with my answer and my research.
The plaintiff dismissed me. ...

Do you mean "dismissed your daughter-in-law?"

 

[LdiJ]

Do you mean "dismissed your daughter-in-law?"

Or the daughter in law just used the inlaw's login to update us on what went on. Lets not make a big deal out of it.

 

[quincy]

Or the daughter in law just used the inlaw's login to update us on what went on. Lets not make a big deal out of it.

I wasn't aware I was making a big deal out of it. . . . . . but whatever.

 

[cosine]

Or the daughter in law just used the inlaw's login to update us on what went on. Lets not make a big deal out of it.

Or the OP was quoting what the daughter said, without making quotations for us to see. That's how I read it the very first time I read it. I had to read it again to see if it sounded like it might be the OP who was sued (could be).