The Texas Supreme Court has reversed a Houston [14th] Court of Appeals decision holding that a defendant who received notice of judgment by email, when the former version of Rule 306a required the clerk to send notice by first-class mail, had actual knowledge of the judgment solely by reason of the unopened email sitting in his inbox.
Red Bluff, Inc. v. Nicole Tarpley (No. 24-0005; May 9, 2025) arose from a dispute over when a party received notice within the required 30 days after the trial court signs the judgment for purposes of making post-judgment motions. In this case, the pre-2022 Rule 306a required a trial court clerk to “immediately give notice to the parties or their attorneys of record by first-class mail advising that the judgment or order was signed.” But the clerk sent notice of judgment to the defendant (Red Bluff) by email instead. Defendant’s counsel claims that he didn’t see, open, or read the email until the 38th day after the judgment was signed, when plaintiff’s counsel sent him a demand to pay up. Counsel immediately filed a notice of appeal and sworn motion under Rule 306a to reset the post-judgment-motion deadline to run from the date he obtained actual knowledge of the judgment. Shortly thereafter he filed a motion for JNOV and motion for new trial. The trial court denied the Rule 306a motion. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant appealed.
In a per curiam opinion, SCOTX reversed. Defendant plainly established that the clerk failed to send notice by first-class mail, as required by Rule 306a. The question then became whether defendant acquired “actual knowledge” of the judgment when it got the email. Noting that a few intermediate appellate courts have concluded that email notice confers actual knowledge, SCOTX said nay. Looking to the plain, ordinary meaning of “actual knowledge,” the Court stated that actual knowledge requires subjective awareness of the information, not just that “the information was available to the person . . . even if he reasonably should have become aware of it” (citation omitted). So although defendant’s counsel acknowledged that he received the email, that fact at most conferred constructive knowledge. But he swore that he didn’t see it, and Plaintiff produced no evidence to the contrary. Red Bluff was thus entitled to an extension and thus timely filed its post-judgment motions.
It is important to note that the underlying litigation here involved a $7.1 million judgment against Red Bluff in a nonsubscriber case brought by an injured employee. Not that it had anything to do with the Court’s thinking, but it would seem to be an unreasonably harsh result to penalize an employer defendant for expecting the clerk to comply with Rule 306a and put the notice in the mail. Under the current version of the rule, notice must be provided through the state’s electronic filing system.
