On August 30, 2024, the Texas Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion in Richard Wade v. Luiz Valdetaro, et al., reversing an approximate $21 million judgment rendered after a virtual bench trial. The Wade case exemplifies the importance of details – specifically, apartment numbers of parties to a suit.
Trial Notice Sent to the Wrong Address
The Wade case involved a breach of fiduciary and fraud suit brought by the Chief Technical Officer and some shareholders of Vertical Computer Systems, Inc., against Wade, the former President and CEO of Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. Wade answered the original suit and confirmed his apartment address (Apt. 293) in a verified plea in abatement filed by his lawyer. Approximately a year later, Wade’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw, mistakenly listing a different, incorrect apartment address (Apt. 277) for Wade.
The court granted the motion to withdraw – Wade did not object – and later set the case for a bench trial. However, notice of the trial setting was sent to Wade at the incorrect apartment address (Apt. 277) listed by his former lawyer in his motion to withdraw, not the correct apartment address listed by Wade in his verified plea in abatement. Wade appeared pro se at the virtual bench trial (he received a trial link by email the day before the trial), but complained he did not receive proper notice, as the trial notice was mailed to an incorrect apartment number.
Texas Supreme Court Finds Reversible Error
The trial court rejected Wade’s argument that he did not receive proper notice – claiming that he failed to call in the Thursday before trial and announce, and also had email-related communications with the court coordinator the day before trial. The court rendered judgment against him for approximately $21 million. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Texas Supreme Court held that it was reversible error for the trial court to proceed to trial against Wade, based upon a trial notice sent to an incorrect address. Although most laypeople might think that Wade’s trial court coordinator communications and his virtual appearance at trial were sufficient notice, the Texas Supreme Court held that due process was not served when the trial notice was mailed to an incorrect address.
—–
Image by Brigitte Werner from Pixabay