failure to make defense in Texas

2016The Texas Supreme Court has broken the bill of review action down into three substantive elements: “(1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment; (2) an excuse justifying the failure to make that defense which is based on the fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposing party; and (3) an excuse unmixed with the fault or negligence of the petitioner.” Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex.1989).

2016See Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex. 1989) (holding that a party seeking to invoke a bill of review to set aside a final judgment must prove (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment; (2) an excuse justifying the failure to make that defense, which is based on the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party; and (3) an excuse unmixed with the fault or negligence of the petitioner).

2009In 1979, the Texas Supreme Court suggested in Baker v. Goldsmith that a pretrial hearing, such as the one at issue here, would allow a trial court to avoid wasting valuable judicial resources by requiring the petitioner to present pri-ma facie proof at an early stage to show that he possessed a meritorious defense to the underlying cause of action. 582 S.W.2d 404, 408-09 (Tex.1979) (creating a Baker hearing).

2009In 1979, the Texas Supreme Court suggested in Baker v. Goldsmith that a pretrial hearing, such as the one at issue here, would allow a trial court to avoid wasting valuable judicial resources by requiring the petitioner to present prima facie proof at an early stage to show that he possessed a meritorious defense to the underlying cause of action. 582 S.W.2d 404, 408-09 (Tex. 1979) (creating a Baker hearing).

2009King Ranch, Inc ., 118 S.W.3d at 751 (citing Alexander , 226 S.W.2d at 998 ).

2008King Ranch, Inc., 118 S.W.3d at 751 (citing Alexander, 226 S.W.2d at 998 .).

2009Ordinarily, a petitioner seeking a bill of review must prove: “(1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment; (2) an excuse justifying the failure to make that defense which is based on the fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposing party; and (3) an excuse unmixed with the fault or negligence of the petitioner.” Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex.1989) (footnote omitted); see also Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex.2004) (per curiam) (“Caldwell II”).

2009Ordinarily, a petitioner seeking a bill of review must prove: "(1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment; (2) an excuse justifying the failure to make that defense which is based on the fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposing party; and (3) an excuse unmixed with the fault or negligence of the petitioner." Beck v. Beck , 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex. 1989) (footnote omitted); see also Caldwell v. Barnes , 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam) (" Caldwell II ").

1999See Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex.1989); Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406-07 (Tex.1979); Hanks v. Rosser, 378 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Tex.1964).

1989Hanks v. Rosser, 378 S.W.2d 31, 34 (Tex.1964).

2016To determine negligence or fault, we look to see “whether the litigant and his counsel used such care as that which prudent and careful men would ordinarily use in their own cases of equal importance.” In re A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex.App.Dallas 2001, pet. denied).

2004Ortega v. First RepublicBank Fort Worth 792 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Tex.1990); Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex.1989).

2004Ortega v. First RepublicBank Fort Worth, 792 S.W.2d 452, 453 (Tex.1990); Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 141 (Tex.1989).