Unidentified speakers during a brief proceeding questioned whether recent statutory changes and differing service addresses could cause parties to miss legal notices and prompt collections actions.

Speaker 2 said the change to the statute "was to aggregate some of those technical defaults," and asked whether providing a different address for service of the judgment as opposed to service of the petition "is that problematic?" The speaker suggested that such address differences could mean notice does not reach the intended recipient and that creditors or collectors might later act on judgments without the defendant having received timely notice.

Earlier in the exchange Speaker 2 announced that "Miss and Natalie will present an argument to the responders," indicating an intended sequence of presentations. Speaker 1 replied with a brief response about an office address and said recent risks "were addressed," indicating some mitigation had occurred but offering no detailed timeline or statutory citation.

No formal motion, vote, or ruling on the service-of-process question is recorded in the transcript. The session concluded when Speaker 2 stated, "The honorable Supreme Court of Texas now stands adjourned."