bill of review hearing in Texas

2023See, e.g., Maree v. Zuniga, 502 S.W.3d 359, 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408–09). 15 evidence offered at the bill-of-review hearing, suggest that Richard wants to relitigate the underlying case.

2023Whether the trial court considered the bill of review hearing a pretrial Baker hearing or a trial on the bill of review merits, the trial court did not properly apply the law to the facts, see $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d at 632 , and its error was reversible, see Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 97–98; Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409 ; In re RPH Capital Partners, 2017 WL 2561562 , at *2; see also Boateng, 171 S.W.3d at 494 (noting that harm analysis does not apply).

2023Whether the trial court considered the bill of review hearing a pretrial Baker hearing or a trial on the bill of review merits, the trial court did not properly apply the law to the facts, see $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d at 632 , and its error was reversible, see Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 97–98; Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409 ; In re RPH Capital Partners, 2017 WL 2561562 , at *2; see also Boateng, 171 S.W.3d at 494 (noting that harm analysis does not apply).

2010In order to prevail, a bill-of-review plaintiff claiming that she was not served must prove “that the judgment was rendered unmixed with any fault or negligence of [her] own.” Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004).3 Because an 2 This statement is consistent with a lease agreement entered into evidence at the bill-of- review hearing. 3 In bill-of-review cases in which the plaintiff does not allege a lack of service, the plaintiff must also plead and prove “a meritorious defense to the underlying cause of action” that he was 2 individual who is not served with process cannot be at fa

2008See Caldwell, 975 S.W.2d at 537 .

2008See Caldwell , 975 S.W.2d at 537 .

2016The Peridot Parties’ ultimate relief should come from the counsel who failed them, not from an equitable bill of review where they cannot possibly satisfy—and certainly have not satisfied on this summary judgment record—the “unmixed with any negligence or fault” element of the bill of review test.1 1 See Petro-Chemical Transp., Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240, 244-46 (Tex. 1974); Eastin v. Dial, 288 S.W.3d 491, 497-98 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, pet. denied) (holding that a bill of review petitioner must plead and prove that the taking of the default judgment was “unmixed with any negligence

2007See Petro-Chemical, 514 S.W.2d at 244-46 .

2009See Chrysler Corp. , 841 S.W.2d at 850 ; Zenergy , 968 S.W.2d at 9 .

2009See Chrysler Corp., 841 S.W.2d at 850 ; Zenergy, 968 S.W.2d at 9.

2008See, e.g., Amanda v. Montgomery, 877 S.W.2d 482, 486-87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Spears v. Haas, 718 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1986, orig. proceeding).

2008See, e.g., Amanda v. Montgomery, 877 S.W.2d 482, 486-87 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Spears v. Haas, 718 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1986, orig. proceeding).

2012Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371, 375 (Tex. 2006).

2012Corp. v. City of Dallas , 197 S.W.3d 371, 375 (Tex. 2006).

2008See, e.g., Amanda v. Montgomery, 877 S.W.2d 482, 486-87 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Spears v. Haas, 718 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1986, orig. proceeding).

2008See, e.g., Amanda v. Montgomery, 877 S.W.2d 482, 486-87 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding); Spears v. Haas, 718 S.W.2d 756, 758 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1986, orig. proceeding).

2008See id. at 916, 918 . 10 attempted to reach his attorney two to four times and failed to appear at any hearing after his attorney was appointed.

2008See id. at 916, 918 .

2008King Ranch v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 752 (Tex. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Hanks v. Rosser, 378 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex. 1964).

2008King Ranch v. Chapman , 118 S.W.3d 742, 752 (Tex. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Hanks v. Rosser , 378 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex. 1964).

2008King Ranch v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 752 (Tex. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Hanks v. Rosser, 378 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex. 1964).

2008King Ranch v. Chapman , 118 S.W.3d 742, 752 (Tex. 2003) (emphasis added); see also Hanks v. Rosser , 378 S.W.2d 31, 35 (Tex. 1964).

2016Insofar as Rule 245 does not convey the right to simply ignore a trial setting that gives reasonable, but less than 45 days, notice of trial, the Peridot Parties can never satisfy this element of the bill of review test Accordingly, the Peridot Parties have no choice but to urge the application of an entirely different legal standard, claiming that their effort to set aside the Default Judgment should not be reviewed as a bill of review but rather as a motion for new trial under Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939).

1985In that instance, the bill of review standard is much like that of Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, 134 Tex. 388 , 133 S.W.2d 124 (1939).

2024The State cited Layton v. Nationsbanc Mortgage Corp., 141 S.W.3d 760 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg 2004, no pet.), during the bill of review hearing for authority that “improper service of process alone does not void a default judgment if the defendant had actual knowledge of the suit and the judgment within sufficient time to file a [b]ill of [r]eview.” However, Layton does not stand for that proposition.

2024See id. at 763– 64.

2023See Boateng, 171 S.W.3d at 492–93 (noting that, where the order setting the hearing identified it as a Baker hearing, “the record does not show that the parties received notice and an opportunity to be heard as to a trial on the merits” and adding that “this error deprived the [parties] of due process because they received no notice of trial and no opportunity to be heard at what later became, by the court’s declaration, the trial on the merits”); see also Pope, 2023 WL 4003516 , at *6 (“Failure to give notice violates ‘the most rudimentary demands of due process law.’” (quoting Peralta v. Hei

2023Whether the trial court considered the bill of review hearing a pretrial Baker hearing or a trial on the bill of review merits, the trial court did not properly apply the law to the facts, see $217,590.00 in U.S. Currency, 18 S.W.3d at 632 , and its error was reversible, see Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 97–98; Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409 ; In re RPH Capital Partners, 2017 WL 2561562 , at *2; see also Boateng, 171 S.W.3d at 494 (noting that harm analysis does not apply).

2023See, e.g., Maree v. Zuniga, 502 S.W.3d 359, 363 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2016, no pet.) (citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408–09). 15 evidence offered at the bill-of-review hearing, suggest that Richard wants to relitigate the underlying case.

2021“An attorney’s knowledge of a trial setting is imputed to h[is] client.” In re C.P., No. 05-19-00044-CV, 2019 WL 2723803 , at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 1, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re D.W., 353 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. denied) (same)); see Buck v. Est. of Buck, 291 S.W.3d 46, 60 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.) (“[N]otice to an attorney, acquired during the existence of the attorney-client relationship, is imputed to the client.”).

2021See Collins v. State, 257 S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2008, no pet.); see also Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 , 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim.

2021See Collins v. State, 257 S.W.3d 816, 817 (Tex. App.— Texarkana 2008, no pet.); see also Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519 , 525 n.8 (Tex. Crim.

2021“An attorney’s knowledge of a trial setting is imputed to h[is] client.” In re C.P., No. 05-19-00044-CV, 2019 WL 2723803 , at *13 (Tex. App.—Dallas July 1, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing In re D.W., 353 S.W.3d 188, 192 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2011, pet. denied) (same)); see Buck v. Est. of Buck, 291 S.W.3d 46, 60 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2009, no pet.) (“[N]otice to an attorney, acquired during the existence of the attorney-client relationship, is imputed to the client.”).

2019See Alaimo, 551 S.W.3d at 214– 15 (observing that a bill of review proceeding challenging a default judgment is not like a motion for new trial, which is filed in the same original cause; rather, a bill of review is an entirely separate suit that is filed under a different cause number).