Grogan, as well as the Corpus Christi court’s decision in Brazos Valley v. And the Dallas Court of Appeals agreed, citing its own prior opinions in Mayfield v. Christian appealed, arguing a no-answer default against one party does not bind another party or deny that party an opportunity to assert defenses. Then, relying on that default judgment against VIPCO and §§ 171.252 and 171.255 of the Tax Code, Venefits obtained summary judgment for that corporate “debt”against Christian-the former president of VIPCO and the only defendant who had filed an answer in the case. VIPCO failed to appear and answer, and Venefits secured a no-answer default against it. Under §§ 171.252 and 171.255 of the Texas Tax Code, directors and officers are personally liable for a corporation’s debts incurred after its corporate privileges are forfeited and before those rights are revived. Before the alleged breach, VIPCO had failed to file a franchise tax report and therefore had forfeited its right to do business in Texas, as well as to sue or defend in a court of this State. Venefits sued VIPCO and its officers and directors for, among other things, breach of contract.
Is the wrongful conduct that would lead to your client’s vicarious or joint liability now established by that default judgment? Nope, says the Dallas Court of Appeals -at least if your client had no right to answer for the defaulting co-defendant or defend in its behalf. You represent a party who’s alleged to be vicariously liable for, or jointly and severally liable with, a co-defendant who fails to answer and suffers a default. It’s one of those things that just doesn’t seem right, but still, you’re not 100% sure about it. Justices Bridges, Francis (Opinion, linked here), and Lang-Miers