Originally published by David Coale.
“[Appellant]’s motion asserted that [he] was ‘unsophisticated in legal matters’ and did not understand he was required to file an answer and thought he would receive a hearing notice before any judgment was rendered. Not understanding a citation and then doing nothing after being served does not constitute a mistake of law that is sufficient to meet the first Craddock element.” Chapple v. Hall, No. 05-18-01209-CV (June 14, 2019) (mem. op.)
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today http://bit.ly/2XUyHdm
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment