The Texas Court of Appeals has reversed a default judgment against Jean Michel Szabuniewicz and several entities linked to the Oak Lawn Investment Trust. The court found that the trial court made an error in granting the default judgment due to improper service of process. This ruling could have significant implications for how legal entities are served in Texas.
The case, Jean Michel Szabuniewicz, Individually and in His Capacity as Former Trustee of the Oak Lawn Investment Trust, et al. v. Todd May, in His Capacity as Trustee of the Beverly Trust, was filed on June 25, 2026, under docket number 02-25-00625-CV. The court's decision highlights the importance of adhering to strict service requirements in legal proceedings.
In the original case, Todd May, as the trustee of the Beverly Trust, filed a lawsuit against Szabuniewicz and various entities claiming breaches of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraud. May alleged that Szabuniewicz abused his position as trustee and continued to control trust assets even after being removed from his role. The lawsuit included multiple claims against Szabuniewicz and the other entities, seeking damages exceeding $7.6 million.
May's legal team filed for default judgment after Szabuniewicz and the other defendants failed to respond to the lawsuit. However, the court found that the service of process was not conducted properly. The returns of service were attached to the motion for default judgment rather than filed with the court, and there were discrepancies in the addresses and names listed.
In its ruling, the court stated, "Because the trial court erred in granting default judgment due to error on the face of the record—defects in the citations and returns of citation—we will reverse and remand to the trial court for further proceedings." The opinion was delivered by Justice Dana Womack and was supported by Justices Birdwell and Walker.
The court's decision emphasizes the necessity for strict compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure regarding service of process. The court noted that defects in service can invalidate a default judgment, stating, "A default judgment cannot withstand direct attack by a defendant who complains that he was not served in strict compliance with applicable requirements." This ruling reinforces the principle that proper legal procedures must be followed for judgments to be valid.
This decision could have broader implications for future cases involving default judgments in Texas. It highlights the need for parties to ensure that service of process is conducted correctly to avoid potential reversals. The ruling also serves as a reminder that courts are increasingly skeptical of default judgments and require meticulous adherence to procedural rules.
Looking ahead, the case will be sent back to the trial court for further proceedings. It remains to be seen how the trial court will address the issues raised by the appellate court and whether May will be able to successfully serve the defendants in compliance with legal requirements. The possibility of an appeal also exists, though details were not available in the court filing regarding any related cases or future actions.