Boreham v. Hartsell

In Boreham v. Hartsell, 826 S.W.2d 193 (Tex. App.--Dallas 1992, no writ), the question presented was whether the plaintiff had adequately alleged that the service address provided in the petition was the defendant's "home or home office," as required by Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code section 17.045 of the civil practice and remedies code. Id. at 195. The plaintiff had pleaded only that the secretary of state should mail the process to the defendant at a certain address in California without alleging that it was the defendant's home or home office, and we held that this omission was fatal to the service and to the default judgment. Id. at 195-97. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that we could infer that the address was the defendant's home address because the address included the phrase "No. 17," which was consistent with an apartment address. Id. at 196-97.