Full Opinion

Court of Appeals Tenth Appellate District of Texas 10-26-00236-CV Wan Bridge Group, LLC, Appellant v. Western Star Concrete, LLC, Appellee On appeal from the 40th District Court of Ellis County, Texas Judge Bob Carroll, presiding Trial Court Cause No. 118601 JUSTICE SMITH delivered the opinion of the Court. MEMORANDUM OPINION Wan Bridge Group, LLC, filed a restricted appeal after a default judgment was entered against it. Wan Bridge complains that the record does not contain a “Whitney” certificate from the Texas Secretary of State showing that citation was forwarded to Wan Bridge and the record does not show the requirements for substituted service on the Texas Secretary of State were met. Western Star Concrete filed a letter in lieu of an Appellee’s Brief in which it concedes that the record does not contain a “Whitney” certificate and asks that the appeal be reversed and remanded for a new trial. “A restricted appeal permits a direct attack on a default judgment when the deadline for filing an ordinary appeal has passed.” Shamrock Enterprises, LLC v. Top Notch Movers, LLC, 728 S.W.3d 693, 696 (Tex. 2026) (citing TEX. R. APP. P. 30). To prevail on a restricted appeal, an appellant must establish that: (1) it filed notice of the restricted appeal within six months after the judgment was signed; (2) it was a party to the underlying lawsuit; (3) it did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment complained of and did not timely file any post-judgment motions or requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of the record. Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845, 848 (Tex. 2004); see TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c), 30; see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 51.013. The face of the record consists of all papers on file in the appeal, including the reporter’s record. Norman Commc’ns v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269, 270 (Tex. 1997). The trial court’s judgment was signed on March 16, 2026. The notice of appeal was filed in the trial court on June 11, 2026, which less than 6 months after the judgment was signed. Wan Bridge was a party to the proceeding but did not participate at the hearing that resulted in the default judgment and Wan Bridge Group, LLC v. Western Star Concrete, LLC Page 2 did not file any post-judgment motions or a request for findings of fact. The return of service shows that Appellee served process on the Secretary of State on January 23, 2026, but does not show that the Secretary of State forwarded the citation to Appellees. When service is completed on the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is required to immediately forward a copy of the process to the most recent address on file pursuant to the Texas Business Organizations Code. See TEX. BUS. ORG. CODE §5.251, 5.253. When accomplished, the record must show proof that service has been accomplished and that process was forwarded in accordance with the statute. Upon request and payment of a fee, the Secretary issues a certification that it received the process and forwarded it to the registered agent’s address. See Tex. Sec’y Of State, https://www.sos.state.tx.us/corp/service-of- process.shtml (last visited Sept. 15, 2026); see also Acadian Props. Austin, LLC v. KJMonte Invs., LLC, 650 S.W.3d 98, 111 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, no pet.). This certificate is known as a “Whitney certificate,” based on the Texas Supreme Court’s 1973 opinion in Whitney v. L&L Realty Corp. See 500 S.W.2d 94 (Tex. 1973). Wan Bridge argues that the lack of a “Whitney certificate” shows error on the face of the record. Western Star agrees that the record does Wan Bridge Group, LLC v. Western Star Concrete, LLC Page 3 not contain the “Whitney certificate” and asks that the judgment be reversed and remanded to the trial court. Our review of the record also shows that there was no “Whitney certificate” in the record, which establishes error on the face of the record. See Am. Servs. U.S., LLC v. Identity Built, LLC, No. 01-23-00540-CV, 2025 Tex. App. LEXIS 2956 at *23 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] May 1, 2025, pet. denied) (lack of “Whitney certificate” shows error on the face of the record.). Accordingly, Wan Bridge’s first issue is sustained. Because it is undisputed that Wan Bridge has established the elements necessary to prevail on a restricted appeal because Wan Bridge was not shown to have been properly served with citation in this proceeding, we do not reach Wan Bridge’s second issue regarding the propriety of service on the Secretary of State. Conclusion Having found that the parties agree that Wan Bridge has established the requirements for a restricted appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. STEVE SMITH Justice Wan Bridge Group, LLC v. Western Star Concrete, LLC Page 4 OPINION DELIVERED and FILED: September 30, 2026 Before Chief Justice Johnson, Justice Smith, and Justice Harris Reversed and remanded CV06 Wan Bridge Group, LLC v. Western Star Concrete, LLC Page 5