05/29/2026
Supreme Court of Texas — Case Summaries
Orders Pronounced May 29, 2026
1. Huffman Asset Management, LLC v. Colter
Disposition: Reversed court of appeals; remanded to trial court
Core Issue
Whether substituted service through the Secretary of State strictly complied with statutory requirements—specifically, whether process was forwarded to the entity’s "most recent address on file.”
Holding
The Supreme Court held that strict compliance was not shown, because the record did not establish that service was forwarded to the entities’ most recent addresses on file with the Secretary of State. The Court emphasized that:
Whitney certificates confirm forwarding but do not establish that the correct statutory address was used
Entities may have multiple addresses on file, and the statute requires use of the most recent one
The record demonstrated the addresses used were not the most recent on file
Accordingly, the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion for new trial.
Concurrence
Justice Huddle (concurring):
Emphasized the Court’s increasing skepticism toward default judgments
Signals a continued tightening of strict-compliance standards in service cases
2. Studio E. Architecture & Interiors, Inc. v. Lehmberg
Disposition: Affirmed
Core Issue
Whether claims dismissed without prejudice for failure to file a certificate of merit may be reasserted by amended petition in the same case, or must be brought in a new lawsuit.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the claims may be reasserted in an amended petition.
Key reasoning:
A dismissal without prejudice returns the parties to their pre-suit posture
Under ordinary procedural rules, the plaintiff may replead as if bringing the claims for the first time
The statute requires a certificate of merit with the first pleading—but after dismissal without prejudice, the amended pleading functions as that “first” pleading
The Court left the relation-back / limitations question for the trial court.
Concurrence
Justice Hawkins (concurring):
Agreed the interpretation properly harmonizes the statute with general procedural rules
Noted the statute’s failure to impose a clear timing limitation, which could invite gamesmanship
Dissent
Justice Sullivan (dissenting):
Would require the plaintiff to file a new lawsuit
Interprets the statute as mandating that the certificate of merit be attached to the first petition in a new cause of action, not a repleading in the same case
3. Staub v. BBVA USA
Disposition: Affirmed
Core Issue
Whether a lender forfeits the entire loan principal under the Texas Constitution for overcharging interest on a home equity loan.
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the forfeiture provision applies only to constitutional violations, not to all contractual breaches.
Key points:
The phrase “obligations” in Article XVI, Section 50(a)(6)(Q)(x) refers to constitutional obligations only
The forfeiture remedy is limited, not a broad penalty for any breach
Historical context and precedent support a textually constrained reading of the forfeiture provision
Thus, overcharging interest—even if a breach—does not trigger full forfeiture of principal unless it violates a constitutional requirement.
Clean Takeaways for Practice
Service / Default Judgments:
The Court continues to demand strict, record-based proof of statutory compliance, especially where multiple possible service addresses exist.
Certificate of Merit Practice:
A dismissal without prejudice preserves flexibility—plaintiffs can correct defects through amendment without refiling.
Home Equity Lending:
The Court cabins constitutional forfeiture remedies tightly, limiting exposure for lenders to true constitutional violations only.
