Helping Texans with a variety of family law cases, including child custody and divorce.

Navigating the Legal Landscape: Understanding and Overcoming Default Judgments

by | Jan 13, 2024 | Firm News

Introduction: In legal proceedings, a default judgment is a critical concept that parties should understand. This blog explores what a default judgment is, how it is obtained, and the potential problems it poses.

What is a Default Judgment? A default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of one party based on the other party’s failure to take action in the case, typically when the defendant fails to respond to a lawsuit. It essentially grants the plaintiff their requested relief without the merits of the case being examined.

How is a Default Judgment Obtained? To obtain a default judgment, a plaintiff must follow specific procedural steps. After serving the lawsuit, if the defendant does not respond within the allotted time, the plaintiff can request a default judgment from the court. This process involves submitting proof of service, the failure of the defendant to respond, and, in some cases, evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim.

Problems Arising from Default Judgments:

  1. Difficulty in Reversal: Once entered, overturning a default judgment can be challenging. Defendants must act quickly and demonstrate valid reasons like improper service or a viable defense.
  2. Unforeseen Consequences for Defendants: Defendants might face wage garnishments, liens on property, or other financial consequences without having their day in court.
  3. Issues of Fairness: Default judgments can raise questions of fairness, especially if the defendant was unaware of the legal action due to improper service.


To set aside a default judgment in Texas, it’s important to understand the process and the requirements involved. A default judgment is a court order made when the defendant doesn’t respond to a lawsuit. To have it set aside, the defendant must file a motion to set aside the default judgment within a specific timeframe, usually 30 days from when the judgment was signed by the judge. In Justice Court cases, this deadline is 14 days. There are exceptions, such as if the defendant learns about the judgment after 20 days from its signing, in which case the 30-day deadline starts from the date of notice. However, this extended deadline can’t start more than 90 days after the judgment was signed. For cases where the defendant was served by publication, a two-year period from the date of the default judgment is allowed to ask for a new trial. Moreover, if the defendant was on active military duty at the time of the judgment, additional time is granted to file the motion​​.

To file this motion, several steps are involved. First, a hearing must be scheduled with the court. Then, the defendant needs to fill out and submit the Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment and Notice of Hearing form, ensuring that all specific details about the failure to respond or appear are accurately provided. This includes reasons like improper service or notice of the hearing or due to an accident or mistake. After filing the motion, a file-stamped copy must be sent to the other party. Finally, the defendant should attend the hearing prepared to explain why the default judgment should be set aside, and bring proof of sending the motion to the other side​​.

There are other legal tools to challenge a default judgment in Texas, such as filing a restricted appeal or a bill of review. A restricted appeal is different from a motion to set aside and focuses on attacking the judgment itself, asserting that it was not supported by law or facts. It must be filed within six months of the judgment. A bill of review is an equitable action seeking to set aside a judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to a motion for a new trial​​.

It’s crucial to consult with a lawyer for guidance throughout this process, as they can provide valuable insight into the legal reasons for setting aside the default judgment and help prepare for the hearing.

Exploring the Nuances of the Craddock Factors:

The Craddock factors are not just a checklist; they represent a deeper judicial philosophy. The first factor, concerning non-intentional failure to respond, speaks to the importance of intent in legal proceedings. It recognizes that mistakes and oversights can occur, and that these should not necessarily preclude a fair hearing. This factor often requires a nuanced understanding of the defendant’s circumstances at the time of the default.

The second factor, the existence of a meritorious defense, underscores the principle that courts are forums for the adjudication of genuine disputes. This criterion compels the defendant to substantiate their claim with credible evidence or legal arguments, ensuring that the court’s time is spent on cases with substantive legal issues.

The third factor, ensuring no prejudice to the plaintiff, balances the scales by protecting the interests of the plaintiff. It is not enough for the defendant to simply argue their case; they must also demonstrate that their actions will not unduly disadvantage the other party involved.

Case Studies and Legal Analysis:

In addition to Strackbein v. Prewitt and Mallory v. Mallory, several other cases have shaped the application of the Craddock factors. For instance, in Ivy v. Carrell, the Texas Supreme Court extended the Craddock criteria to post-answer default judgments, further solidifying its applicability.

Each case that applies the Craddock factors adds a layer of interpretation and precedent, evolving the test into a dynamic and adaptable legal tool. Attorneys and judges often analyze these cases to gauge how the Craddock factors might be applied in new contexts, making it a living, breathing aspect of Texas jurisprudence.

Broader Implications for Civil Justice:

The application of the Craddock factors has implications beyond individual cases. It influences how lawyers advise their clients, how parties approach settlement negotiations, and how judges manage their courtrooms. For example, knowing that a default judgment might be set aside if the Craddock criteria are met might encourage parties to seek more amicable resolutions outside of court.

Moreover, the Craddock test reflects a broader trend in the legal system towards ensuring access to justice. By allowing default judgments to be revisited, the courts acknowledge that the legal system can be complex and daunting, especially for those without legal training.


In essence, the Craddock factors are much more than a legal formula; they are a manifestation of the principles of fairness, justice, and accessibility in the Texas legal system. They offer a chance for redemption in the face of human error, a platform for presenting genuine legal defenses, and a safeguard against undue harm to plaintiffs. For any party involved in a default judgment in Texas, understanding the Craddock test is not just a legal necessity; it’s a journey through the heart of civil jurisprudence in the state.


As the founder and owner of the Beveridge Law Firm, I, Ben Beveridge, have a deep personal and professional connection to the challenges faced by non-custodial parents, particularly fathers and husbands. Having been a non-custodial parent myself, who only saw my kids on weekends, I understand the struggle for equal access to children. My journey through law school was driven by this personal experience, and soon after passing the bar, I achieved equal access to my kids.

My passion lies in helping parents, especially in Brazoria and Galveston counties, navigate the complexities of family law. Brazoria County houses the 461st and 300th District Courts, with Judge Bulanek presiding over the 461st and Judge Bradshaw over the 300th, and their associate judges being Judge Donnell and Judge Lehman, respectively. In Galveston County, we focus on the 306th District Court, as well as Galveston County Courts at Law 1, 2, and 3.

At the Beveridge Law Firm, located at 410 South 2nd St, Alvin, Texas 77511, we specialize in securing equal time for parents with their children and enforcing orders when the other parent is not complying with court-ordered periods of possession. We also have a significant track record of successful appeals, overturning many orders by trial judges in appellate courts.

For personalized legal assistance in securing your parental rights or for more information, contact us at 281-407-0961 or visit Beveridge Law Firm. Your fight for equal access to your children is our mission.