prima facie meritorious defense in Texas

2025“If the court determines that a prima facie meritorious defense has not been made out, the proceeding terminates and the trial court shall dismiss the case.” Id.

2024See Herrera, 2022 WL 17002128 , at *2; Morris, 464 S.W.3d at 806 (citation omitted). “[W]hether a bill-of- review petitioner has made a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim or defense is a question of law we review de novo.” Morris, 464 S.W.3d at 806 (citations omitted); see also Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 , 408–09 (Tex. 1979) (explaining that whether the petitioner presented a prima facie meritorious defense “is a question of law for the court[]”).

2004See Martinez v. Tex. Dept. of Protective & Reg., 116 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2003, pet. denied).

2004See Martinez v. Tex. Dept. of Protective & Reg., 116 S.W.3d 266, 270 (Tex.App.--El Paso 2003, pet. denied).

2023Id.; see also Beck, 771 S.W.2d at 142 .

2013See Beck v. Beck, 771 S.W.2d 141, 142 (Tex.1989) (holding appellate court erred in considering issue other than whether the petitioner presented prima facie proof of a meritorious defense).

2004Baker v. Goldsmith , 582 S.W.2d 404 , 408–09 (Tex. 1979); Hartsfield v. Wisdom , 843 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1992, writ denied).

2003Baker v. Goldsmith , 582 S.W.2d 404 , 408–09 (Tex. 1979); Hartsfield v. Wisdom , 843 S.W.2d 221, 223 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1992, writ denied).

2023If, however, the petitioner does establish a prima facie meritorious defense, then the 12 court should proceed to the second step: discovery and a trial on the merits of the bill of review.5 Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409 ; Boateng v. Trailblazer Health Enters., L.L.C., 171 S.W.3d 481, 488 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. denied).

2006Boateng v. Trailblazer Health Enter., 171 S.W.3d 481 , 488 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. filed) (citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409 ) If a prima facie meritorious defense is shown, the judge then conducts a trial on the merits of the bill of review.

2024At the preliminary stage, “a prima facie meritorious defense is made out when it is determined that the complainant’s defense is not barred as a matter of law and that he will be entitled to judgment on retrial if no evidence to the contrary is offered.” Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408–09; see In re M.Y.W., No. 14-06-00185-CV, 2006 WL 3360482 , at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 21, 2006, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citation omitted); Jones, 85 S.W.3d at 488 (noting same).

2024See Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408–09; Jones, 85 S.W.3d at 488 (noting same); see also In re M.Y.W., 2006 WL 3360482 , at *2.

2015“In cases involving bills of review to set aside divorce decrees regarding [a] division of property, courts have held that a meritorious claim is presented by proof that the petitioner “‘would obtain a more favorable property division on retrial.’” Elliott v. Elliott, 21 S.W.3d 913, 919 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied) (quoting Martin, 840 S.W.2d at 592 ).

2013“If the court determines that a prima facie meritorious defense has not been made out, the proceeding terminates and the trial court shall dismiss the case.” Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409 ; see also Elliott, 21 S.W.3d at 917 . “[I]f a prima facie meritorious defense [is] shown, the court will [then] conduct a trial on the bill of review petition” where the other bill of review elements will be considered.

2006See Caldwell , 154 S.W.3d at 97 .

2006See Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 97 . *166 Nelson’s Petition for Bill of Review In his first issue on appeal, Nelson contends that he did plead and prove a meritorious prima facie defense, and, therefore, the trial court erred in granting the Attorney General’s summary judgment motion.

2000See Hartsfield v. Wisdom, 843 S.W.2d 221, 224 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1992, writ denied) (holding mere allegation that complainant was mentally incompetent inadequate; complainant “must also plead or show proof that he received an unfair settlement and would obtain a more favorable property division on retrial if his allegations were believed.” (emphasis added)); see also Arndt v. Arndt, 714 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (holding evidence of disproportionate property division based on values three years after divorce was not prima facie proof of meritorious claim); Ear

1995See also Arndt v. Arndt, 714 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ). [33] The question of whether a bill of review plaintiff has made out a prima facie meritorious defense is a question of law for the court.

1998See, In the Interest of S.R.M., 601 S.W.2d 766, 769 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1980, no writ).

1998See, In the Interest of S.R.M., 601 S.W.2d 766, 769 (Tex.Civ.App.—Amarillo 1980, no writ).

1983If a prima facie meritorious defense has been shown to the court, “the measure of the law is fulfilled and the parties are then relegated to their original status of plaintiff and defendant, with the burden of proof resting upon the plaintiff to make his case, leaving the defendant the right, if he sees fit, to rely merely upon the weakness of his adversary’s case.” Crosby v. DiPalma, 141 S.W. 321 (Tex.Civ.App.—El Paso 1911, writ ref’d); also see Dicker v. Binkley, 555 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1977, no writ).

1979If a prima facie meritorious defense has been shown to the court, “the measure of the law is fulfilled, and the parties are then relegated to their original status of plaintiff and defendant, with the burden of proof resting upon the plaintiff to make his case, leaving the defendant the right, if he sees fit, to rely merely upon the weakness of his adversary’s case.” Id. at 325 ; see Dicker v. Binkley, 555 S.W.2d 495, 498 (Tex.Civ.App. —Dallas 1977, no writ) (must show meritorious defense to the extent that, had the defense been presented, the prior judgment would not have been rendered); cf.

2000See Hartsfield v. Wisdom, 843 S.W.2d 221, 224 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1992, writ denied) (holding mere allegation that complainant was mentally incompetent inadequate; complainant “must also plead or show proof that he received an unfair settlement and would obtain a more favorable property division on retrial if his allegations were believed.” (emphasis added)); see also Arndt v. Arndt, 714 S.W.2d 86, 88 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (holding evidence of disproportionate property division based on values three years after divorce was not prima facie proof of meritorious claim); Ear

1995Earp v. Earp, 688 S.W.2d at 247-48 . [29] The case involved a bill of review proceeding following a trial on the merits. [30] The court of appeals statement that the bill of review plaintiff "must establish that if his appeal had been preserved judgment might and probably would have been reversed," indicates that the court is adhering to the requirement that only a prima facie meritorious defense need be shown.

2021Analyzing this element in a similar context, the Fort Worth Court of Appeals cited at length the reasoning from Martin v. Martin, 840 S.W.2d 586 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1992, writ denied): Martin illustrates the type of proof which would suffice to present a prima facie meritorious defense by a complainant such as [the wife].

2015A prima facie meritorious defense “‘is made out when it is determined that the [alleged] defense is not barred as a matter of law and that [the petitioner] will be entitled to judgment on retrial if no evidence to the contrary is offered.’” Mosley, 110 S.W.2d at 661 (quoting Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 10 408-09); see also Martin, 840 S.W.2d at 591 .

2024See Herrera, 2022 WL 17002128 , at *2; Morris, 464 S.W.3d at 806 (citation omitted). “[W]hether a bill-of- review petitioner has made a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim or defense is a question of law we review de novo.” Morris, 464 S.W.3d at 806 (citations omitted); see also Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 , 408–09 (Tex. 1979) (explaining that whether the petitioner presented a prima facie meritorious defense “is a question of law for the court[]”).

2024See Herrera, 2022 WL 17002128 , at *2; Morris, 464 S.W.3d at 806 (citation omitted). “[W]hether a bill-of- review petitioner has made a prima facie showing of a meritorious claim or defense is a question of law we review de novo.” Morris, 464 S.W.3d at 806 (citations omitted); see also Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 , 408–09 (Tex. 1979) (explaining that whether the petitioner presented a prima facie meritorious defense “is a question of law for the court[]”).

2024See Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661 . –27– The petitioners contend the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition because: (1) the pending appeal of the original judgment does not negate the availability of a bill of review; (2) they met their burden to establish a prima facie meritorious defense to SOMMA’s claims; and (3) the record either establishes or creates fact issues as to whether SOMMA deprived them of one or more meritorious defenses through fraud or wrongful acts unmixed with the petitioners’ own negligence.

2024See Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661 . –27– The petitioners contend the trial court erred by summarily dismissing the petition because: (1) the pending appeal of the original judgment does not negate the availability of a bill of review; (2) they met their burden to establish a prima facie meritorious defense to SOMMA’s claims; and (3) the record either establishes or creates fact issues as to whether SOMMA deprived them of one or more meritorious defenses through fraud or wrongful acts unmixed with the petitioners’ own negligence.

2015See, e.g., McDaniel v. Hale, 893 S.W.2d 652, 675 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1994, writ denied). 16 Nevertheless, even if we assumed Jewel met her burden to demonstrate a meritorious defense, we conclude that Jewel also failed to establish that her failure to present her alleged meritorious defense was as a result of the extrinsic fraud, accident, or wrongful conduct of Martin.

2015Martin, 840 S.W.2d at 590-92 (holding bill of review plaintiff offered prima facie proof of her meritorious claim where evidence showed company’s financial condition was “entering into a period of prosperity” and not in a “precarious financial condition” as represented, and had $6 million in retained community income unknown to plaintiff at time of divorce); Kessler v. Kessler, 693 S.W.2d 522, 526 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1985, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (a prima facie meritorious defense was presented where evidence conclusively showed husband fraudulently concealed community property cash deposit o

2011Worldbridge, relying primarily on Alexander v. Hagedom, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950), contended KBIC had failed to establish the requirements of (1) a prima facie meritorious defense to the underlying action, (2) which it was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of Worldbridge, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence on KBIC’s part.

2011Worldbridge, relying primarily on Alexander v. Hagedom, 148 Tex. 565 , 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950), contended KBIC had failed to establish the requirements of (1) a prima facie meritorious defense to the underlying action, (2) which it was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of Worldbridge, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence on KBIC’s part.

2002Harlen v. Pfeffer , 693 S.W.2d 543, 546 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1985, no writ).

1990Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408-09 ; Lambert v. Coachmen Industries of Texas, Inc., 761 S.W.2d 82, 86 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1988, writ denied).