Pearson v. Fullingim, Not Reported in S.W.3d (2006) Before Chief Justice LAW, Justices PATTERSON and 2006 WL 358230 PURYEAR. Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. Opinion SEE TX R RAP RULE 47.2 FOR DESIGNATION AND SIGNING OF OPINIONS. MEMORANDUM OPINION MEMORANDUM OPINION Court of Appeals of Texas, W. KENNETH LAW, Chief Justice. Austin. *1 Appellant Louis Pearson appeals the trial court's default Louis PEARSON and Deborah Pearson, Appellants judgment in favor of appellec Fullingim, dibia Awesome Air & Heat Service ("Awesome Air"), arguing that (1) the trial Patricia FULLINGIM d/b/a Awesome court erred by denying his motion for new trial when he Air & Heat Service, Appellee. did not receive notice of the trial, (2) the petition does not support a default judgment, and (3) the evidence is factually No. 03-03-00524-CV. | Feb. 17, 2006. insufficient. We will affirm the judgment. Synopsis Background: Contractor sued homeowner and his estranged wife for breach of contract. The County Court at Law, Travis BACKGROUND County, J. David Phillips, J., entered default judgment in In December 2001, Louis and Deborah Pearson signed a favor of contractor and subsequently granted wife's motion contract related to the purchase and installation of an HVAC for new trial, but denied homeowner's motion for new system in their home by Awesome Air. The Pearsons later trial. After claims against wife were dismissed, homeowner decided not to use Awesome Air's services or products. appealed. On August 8, 2002, Awesome Air filed suit against the Pearsons for breach of contract. The Pearsons were each served with citation and answered separately, - asserting Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Austin W. Kenneth Law, that the signed document was an estimate rather than a CJ., held that: contract, and that they had been told they only needed to sign it for insurance purposes. The handwritten answers were ] homeowner failed to show that his nonappearance at file-stamped September 20 and October 11, respectively. trial was neither intentional nor the result of conscious Awesome Air filed a notice of hearing on October 30, setting indifference, so as to warrant vacating default judgment, and trial for December 19. After the Pearsons failed to appear at trial, the trial court heard evidence and signed a default [2] evidence was factually sufficient to support default judgment in favor of Awesome Air for $3,101.39 in damages, judgment. $310.14 in pre-judgment interest, $245 in costs of court, $2,330 in attorney fees, and additional attorney's fees in the event of an appeal. The Pearsons filed a motion for new trial Affirmed. on February 21, 2003, alleging that they did not receive notice of the trial setting and were unaware that the trial had occurred From the County Court at Law No. I of Travis County, No. or that a judgment had been signed until a writ of execution 264,852, J. David Phillips, Judge Presiding. was attempted at Mrs. Pearson's place of business on February 5. ' A hearing on the motion for new trial was held on March Attorneys and Law Firms 24. * The trial court denied Mr. Pearson's motion, but granted Brian C. Guequierre, Austin, for appellants. Mrs. Pearson's. Awesome Air subsequently dismissed its suit against Mrs. Pearson. This appeal followed. Paul C. Velte IV, Austin, for appellec.Who are the parties in the case (in other words, who are the parties appealing the case and who is the party responding to the appeal or otherwise raising their own points in the appeal}; What court decided the opinion you are reading (for example, the Texas Supreme Court, or the First Circuit Court of Appeals of Texas); What is the factual background (what are the factual details of what happened and why); What is the procedural background (for example, what was the verdict at the trial court, who appealed, what happened on appeal, etc); What is the error on appeal (the party that brings the appeal is claiming the trial court got something wrong as the basis for the appeal); What is the holding (aka the court's decision) on the issues on appeal; If there is a dissenting opinion, what is the public policy behind the dissent