In The Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont __________________ NO. 09-19-00147-CV __________________ COLEMAN R. FERGUSON, Appellant V. TRANSPECTO TRANSPORT COMPANY, Appellee __________________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 58th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. A-201,340 __________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION In this restricted appeal, 1 Coleman R. Ferguson seeks to overturn a judgment he suffered by default favoring the plaintiff that sued him, Transpecto Transport 1 See Tex. R. App. P. 30 (providing that “[a] party who did not participate— either in person or through counsel—in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and who did not timely file a postjudgment motion or request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, or a notice of appeal within the time permitted by Rule 26.1(a), may file a notice of appeal within” six months after the trial court signed the judgment). Here, the trial court signed the judgment on November 15, 2018. Ferguson filed his notice of appeal on May 10, 2019. 1 Company. In the court below, Transpecto sued Ferguson and Ferguson Syngas, LLC, alleging that Ferguson Syngas defaulted on the loan it obtained from Transpecto and that Ferguson, as Ferguson Syngas’s agent, was guilty of fraud based on the conduct he engaged in to obtain the loan.2 We conclude that Ferguson has failed to show that he was not served properly under the rules of procedure that apply to serving a party at his last known address based on the facts in the face of the record. Because the face of the record does not show Transpecto failed to serve Ferguson at his last known address or that the petition and citation were not served in accordance with the order the trial court signed authorizing serving him at his last known address by affixing a copy of the petition and citation to the residence that was his last known address, we affirm. Background In February 2014, Ferguson, acting for Ferguson Syngas, LLC, obtained a loan for $120,000 from Transpecto Transport Company. Under Ferguson Syngas’s note, the company agreed to pay the balance of the loan, with interest, when the loan 2 Even though Coleman R. Ferguson and Ferguson Syngas, LLC were named as defendants and the trial court rendered judgment against both, Coleman R. Ferguson is the only party who filed a notice to appeal from the trial court’s judgment. Even had Ferguson Syngas, LLC also filed a restricted appeal, however, we would reach the same conclusion we reach in disposing of Ferguson’s appeal— that no error has been shown based on the evidence found on the face of the record— since the argument he raises in his brief claiming Ferguson Syngas, LLC is chartered in the State of Oklahoma and not Texas is unsupported by the evidence that falls within our scope of review. 2 matured in one year. When Ferguson Syngas failed to pay the loan, lawyers representing Transpecto sent Ferguson and Ferguson Syngas a letter demanding that Ferguson Syngas pay the loan …
Original document
