JOHNSON v. LEZA (2025)

OPINION

Appellant Taurean Jamal Johnson brings this restricted appeal from a judgment awarding possession of real property and past due rent to appellee Augustine Ignacio Leza. In three issues, Johnson contends that the trial court erred by not appointing counsel for Johnson, not requiring Leza to file an indemnity bond, and granting a default judgment.

For each of his issues, Johnson relies exclusively on Section 3931 of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), which provides certain protections for servicemembers against default judgments. See 50 U.S.C. § 3931. For example, the SCRA provides, “If in an action covered by this section it appears that the defendant is in military service, the court may not enter a judgment until after the court appoints an attorney to represent the defendant.” Id. § 3931(b)(2). And, if a court is unable to determine whether the defendant is in military service, the court “may require the plaintiff to file a bond,” for the purpose of indemnifying a servicemember against loss or damage if a judgment is ultimately set aside. Id. § 3931(b)(3).

But as Johnson notes, the statute only applies to a civil action “in which the defendant does not make an appearance.” Id. § 3931(a). The statute does not apply if the defendant makes a general appearance. In re Austin, No. 04-25-00300-CV, ––– S.W.3d ––––, –––– – ––––, 2025 WL 3084534, at *4–5 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 5, 2025, orig. proceeding); Masimula v. Masimula, No. 08-24-00084-CV, 2025 WL 1387788, at *5–6 (Tex. App.—El Paso May 13, 2025, no pet.) (mem. op.); Vandemark v. Jimenez, No. 01-09-00168-CV, 2010 WL 1241287, at *4 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 1, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); see also Fodge v. Trustmark Nat'l Bank, 945 F.3d 880, 882–83 (5th Cir. 2019) (Section 3931 of the SCRA did not apply to an executory proceeding based on a Louisiana confession of judgment, which amounts to an answer and appearance).

The trial court's judgment recites that Johnson appeared, which is presumed true and is not rebutted. See, e.g., Vance v. Tamborello, No. 14-09-00798-CV, 2010 WL 4217527, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Oct. 26, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.); Yturri v. McLeod, 26 Tex. 84, 88 (1861).

Moreover, the record contains Johnson's answer, motion to dismiss, and counterclaims. His filing of an answer and request for affirmative relief amounts to a general appearance. See In re Austin, ––– S.W.3d at ––––, 2025 WL 3084534, at *5; see also Guardianship of Fairley, 650 S.W.3d 372, 386–87 (Tex. 2022).

Because Johnson appeared, Section 3931 of the SCRA does not apply. His issues are overruled, and the trial court's judgment is affirmed.

Ken Wise, Justice