Valdez v Hollenbeck (Tex 2015) SoL for Bill of Review in probate cases

BILL OF REVIEW IN PROBATE CASE: WHEN DOES IT HAVE TO BE FILED TO BE TIMELY UNDER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS?


A bill of review proceeding to set aside a prior judgment must normally be brought within four years, unless a specific statute sets a different limitations period under specific circumstances. The probate code, now estates code, provides for a statutory bill of review with a two year statute of limitations. But even when there is no dispute as to which limitations period applies, there may still be a litigable issue on when the limitations period begins to run, and whether an extension of the applicable limitations period is available based on a tolling theory, and if so, when the tolling effect ceases.  
      
In an opinion issued last week, the Texas Supreme Court held in an egregious case of theft from an estate by a "rogue probate clerk" that the heirs brought their bill of review to reopen the probate case too late. In reaching this conclusion, the Court applied the two-year limitations period because the applicable statute "unequivocally prescribes a two-year limitations period for all bills of review in probate proceedings." The invocation of tolling did not save the heirs' claims.  
   

Valdez v Hollenbeck, 
No. 13-0709 (Tex. June 12, 2015) (Opinion by Justice Guzman)

The heirs had petitioned the probate court to re-open the estate more than ten years after the estate's administration had closed, alleging that the estate administrator breached fiduciary duties and fraudulently concealed information about the estate’s assets. The probate court denied the statutory bill of review (subject to two-year limitations period), but granted the equitable bill of review (governed by the residual 4-yr SoL) and set aside the orders closing probate. The heirs successfully litigated their claims against the administrator and were awarded damages against the administrator and his surety. The San Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the heirs’ petition for bill of review was filed more than two years after they received information that would cause a reasonably prudent person to make inquiry, which would have led to the discovery of the concealed cause of action. A half-million-dollar discrepancy in the value of an estate, the court reasoned, is considerable and gives rise to a duty to make further inquiry. The heirs’ claims were discoverable and the estoppel effect of tolling ceased more than two years before they initiated bill-of-review proceedings. Under these circumstances, their bill of review was time-barred.under the two-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court accordingly reversed and rendered judgment for the administrator and the surety without considering the merits of the bill of review.

EXCERPT FROM THE OPINION

The threshold issue here is whether the equitable bill of review was timely filed.

Generally, a bill of review allows a party to challenge a judgment after the time for filing a motion for new trial or an appeal has expired. Recognizing the importance our legal system places on the finality of judgments, courts generally allow bills of review only in limited circumstances or as authorized by statute. An equitable bill of review must ordinarily be filed within four years of the date the judgment is signed unless extrinsic fraud is established or an express limitations period is prescribed by statute. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 16.051 (prescribing four-year residual statute of limitations if "there is no express limitations period"); PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267, 275 (Tex. 2012) (tolling limitations period because there was some evidence of extrinsic fraud).
     
At the time of the events giving rise to this suit, Texas Probate Code section 31 provided that "no bill of review shall be filed after two years have elapsed from the date of [the probate court’s] decision, order or judgment." Act of March 17, 1955, 54th Leg., R.S., ch. 55, § 31, 1955 Tex. Gen. Laws 88, 97 (former TEX. PROB. CODE § 31).1 Section 31’s plain language thus establishes a two-year limitations period for bills of review attacking a probate decision, order, or judgment.
 
Although the heirs contend limitations was tolled, we need not decide whether and under what circumstances tolling doctrines might apply because the effect of any tolling would have ended more than two years before the heirs filed their bill-of-review petition. We therefore hold the heirs’ bill of review is untimely. Accordingly, without reaching the merits of either the bill of review or the underlying claims, we reverse the court of appeals’ judgment and render judgment for the administrator and the surety on the bill of review. 


SOURCE: Valdez v Hollenbeck, No. 13-0709 (Tex. June 12, 2015)(Opinion by Justice Eva Guzman)

　

　

　

　 

Challenging a Default Judgment by equitable Bill of Review

   
Attacking a default judgment by Bill of Review petition when the time for a regular or restricted appeal has passed: Under what circumstances may the trial court set aside a default judgment by bill of review?  

     
NATURE OF BILL OF REVIEW AS A POST-JUDGMENT REMEDY AND CRITERIA THAT MUST BE SATISFIED TO WARRANT RELIEF   
    

A bill of review is an equitable proceeding in which a party seeks to set aside a prior judgment that is no longer subject to challenge by a motion for new trial or appeal. See Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam); Transworld Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407, 407-08 (Tex. 1987).

To set aside a judgment by bill of review, “petitioner must ordinarily plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) that he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident or wrongful act of his opponent, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own.” Transworld, 722 S.W.2d at 408. The residual four-year statute of limitations applies to bills of review. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 16.051 (West 2008); Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 538 (Tex. 1998). Although a bill of review is an equitable proceeding, a perceived injustice alone is not sufficient to justify relief by bill of review. See Wembley Inv. Co. v. Herrera, 11 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. 1999) (per curiam).

“Generally, bill of review relief is available only if a party has exercised due diligence in pursuing all adequate legal remedies against a former judgment and, through no fault of its own, has been prevented from making a meritorious claim or defense by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party.” Id.

A bill of review petitioner claiming non-service is relieved of showing a meritorious defense that was prevented by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of his opponent, or a court official in the exercise of official duties. Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 96-97.

  

STANDARD OF REVIEW ON APPEAL

 

We review an order granting or denying a bill of review under an abuse of discretion standard. Ramsey v. Davis, 261 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied). A trial court abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision that is so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has no discretion in determining what the law is or applying the law to the facts. Id. at 840. A trial court abuses its discretion as to factual matters when it acts unreasonably or arbitrarily. Niskar v. Niskar, 136 S.W.3d 749, 753 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.). The trial court does not abuse its discretion as to factual issues if there is some evidence of a substantive and probative character to support the decision. In re C.G.,
261 S.W.3d 842, 848 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). Under an abuse of discretion standard, legal and factual insufficiency are not independent grounds for reversal. In re L.A.F., 270 S.W.3d 735, 738 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, pet. denied). Sufficiency of the evidence is, however, a relevant factor to the appellate court's review. Id. In our review, we consider whether the trial court had sufficient evidence upon which to exercise its discretion and erred in application of that discretion. In re C.G., 261 S.W.3d at 848. When, as here, there are no findings of fact or conclusions of law, and none were requested, we assume the trial court made all necessary findings to support its judgment. See In re J.H., 264 S.W.3d 919, 924 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). In our review of the record, we determine whether some evidence supports the judgment and implied findings and disregard entirely contradictory evidence. See id. (citing Niskar, 136 S.W.3d at 753-54). The judgment will be upheld on any legal theory supported in the evidence. Id.
   

SOURCE: DALLAS COURT OF APPEALS - 05-10-00363-CV – 11/10/11  

Successful Bill of Review entails retrial of claim(s) on which underlying judgment was based

   
BILL OF REVIEW DEFINED - PROCEDURE EXPLAINED

“A bill of review is an independent equitable action brought by a party to a former action seeking to set aside a judgment, which is no longer appealable or subject to motion for new trial.” Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1979). The judgment may be set aside “for sufficient cause.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(f); Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 406. The complainant files a petition “to invoke the equitable powers of the court.” Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408; In re K.M.S., 68 S.W.3d 61, 66 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001), pet. denied, 91 S.W.3d 331 (Tex. 2002) (per curiam).

ELEMENTS OF PROOF FOR BILL OF REVIEW TO VACATE PRIOR JUDGMENT

Generally, the bill of review complainant must prove “‘(1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment, (2) which he was prevented from making by the fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposite party, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own.’” Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 406–07 (quoting Alexander v. Hagedorn, 148 Tex. 565, 568–69, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (1950)).

EFFECT OF TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT IN A BILL-OF- REVIEW PROCEEDING 
 
If the complainant establishes prima facie proof of a meritorious defense, the court conducts a trial at which the merits of the underlying issue are effectively relitigated. Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 98 (Tex. 2004); Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409. During the bill of review trial, “the parties . . . revert to their original status as plaintiff and defendant with the burden on the original plaintiff to prove his or her case.” Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 98; accord Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 407–08. The bill of review defendant—the original plaintiff—must prove, and may offer evidence to support, “his original cause of action.” Meece v. Moerbe, 631 S.W.2d 729, 729 (Tex. 1982) (citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409). At the end of the proceeding, if the fact-finder decides the complainant (the original defendant) has proved his case to set aside the judgment, the trial court may vacate the prior judgment. See Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409. And if the bill of review defendant (the plaintiff in the original proceeding) proves his original case, the trial court may “substitute a new judgment which properly adjudicates the entire controversy.” In re J.B.A., 127 S.W.3d 850, 851 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004, no pet.); cf. Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995) (per curiam) (citing Tesoro Petrol. v. Smith, 796 S.W.2d 705, 705 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam)).

SOURCE: 04-09-00040-CV (8/31/09) (San Antonio Court of Appeals)

EQUITABLE RELIEF: What is a Bill of Review in Texas Courts?

  
A Bill of Review is not exactly a substantive cause of action, but nevertheless a means by which a court may grant EQUITABLE RELIEF (setting aside a default judgment that is no longer appealable). The Bill of Review, and its elements, thus fit within the scope of this blawg. 

THE NATURE OF A BILL OF REVIEW AND REQUIREMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL PETITION IN A BILL-OF-REVIEW SUIT: 
 
A bill of review is an independent equitable proceeding brought by a party to a former action who seeks to set aside a judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to a challenge by a motion for new trial. Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam).
 
ELEMENTS OF BILL OF REVIEW

To prevail, a bill of review plaintiff must prove: (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action upon which the judgment is based, (2) which he or she was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party or official mistake, (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence on his or her own part. Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 96; Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406-07 (Tex. 1979).
 
Additionally, bill of review relief is available only if a party has exercised due diligence in pursuing all adequate legal remedies. Wembley Inv. Co. v. Herrera, 11 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. 1999). This due diligence requirement is distinct from the three bill of review elements and must be established before a complainant is entitled to seek bill of review relief. Narvaez, 127 S.W.3d at 321. “The inquiry traditionally used to determine whether a party has been diligent is 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 the Interest of A.L.H.C., 49 S.W.3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pet. denied). 
 
SOURCE: 04-09-00198-CV (9/23/09) (San Antonio Court of Appeals) (trial court's order granting bill of review reversed because petitioner did not exercise available remedies, i.e., direct appeal).