Opinion
No. 05-17-00947-CV
05-21-2018
IN THE INTEREST OF S.G.T., A CHILD
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-23071
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Francis, Fillmore, and Whitehill
Opinion by Justice Whitehill
This case involves Father's petition for a bill of review filed three years after the trial court's determination of child support obligations. In a single issue, Father argues the trial court erred in denying the petition because the failure to recognize his disability led to a retroactive child support judgment against him. We affirm the trial court's judgment because Father did not plead and prove extrinsic fraud or that the judgment was entered through no fault of his own.
I. BACKGROUND
Mother's petition to modify the parent-child relationship was heard on June 6, 2013. The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) appeared, as did Mother and Father, both represented by counsel. On August 2, 2013, the trial court rendered judgment ordering Father to pay $222.56 monthly child support and $27,901.58 retroactively.
On October 26, 2016, Father filed a petition for review alleging that Mother and the OAG engaged in fraud against him by failing to account for disability payments he received after July 27, 2012, and by failing to properly record the Social Security Administration finding that he was disabled.
The trial court held a hearing and dismissed the petition after concluding that Father's petition did not allege sufficient facts to sustain a bill of review. Appellant filed a motion to reconsider and a motion for new trial. After a hearing, both motions were denied.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review and Applicable Law
A bill of review is an 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 motion for new trial. Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1979). A bill of review is proper when a party has exercised due diligence to prosecute all legal remedies against a former judgment. King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742, 751 (Tex. 2003).
Because Texas favors the finality of judgments, the grounds for granting a bill of review are narrow. Id. To set aside a judgment by bill of review, a petitioner must ordinarily plead and prove three elements: (i) a meritorious defense to the cause of action alleged to support the judgment; (ii) that the petitioner was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of his or her opponent; and (iii) petitioner was not negligent. King Ranch, 118 S.W.3d at 751-52. We review the granting or denial of a bill of review under an abuse of discretion standard. Ramsey v. Davis, 261 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.).
B. Did Father plead and prove sufficient facts to invoke the court's equitable jurisdiction?
The crux of Father's argument is that Mother and the OAG committed fraud by refusing to recognize that he was found disabled, and their failure to do so led to the retroactive child support judgment against him in the underlying action.
He also generally alleged that evidence had been suppressed, but he failed to identify the evidence or the parties responsible for the alleged suppression.
Courts distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud when considering a bill of review. See King Ranch, 118 S.W.3d at 752. Extrinsic fraud is fraud that denied a party the opportunity to litigate all of the rights or defenses that could have been asserted. Id. Intrinsic fraud, by contrast, relates to the merits of the issues that were presented and presumably were or should have been settled in the former action. Id. Only extrinsic fraud will support a petition for review. Id.
Here, Father did not plead or prove extrinsic fraud. Instead, his complaints pertain to the calculation of retroactive child support decided in the underlying proceeding. If his disability determination impacted that calculation, it could have been raised in that proceeding. Father does not allege any facts demonstrating that Mother or the OAG prevented him from doing so.
Moreover, Father failed to prove that he was not negligent by failing to raise the disability. See King Ranch, 118 S.W.3d at 752 (listing elements). Father and his counsel were present at the June 6 hearing but did not raise the disability issue. At the hearing on Father's motion for new trial, Father argued that his attorney did not make the arguments they had agreed upon and his disability prevented him from speaking at that hearing, but he provided no evidence of these allegations. A bill of review petitioner who alleges that his attorney's wrongful act caused an adverse judgment is not excused from the necessity of pleading and proving extrinsic fraud. Id. Because Father failed to do so, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing his petition for a bill of review.
We resolve Father's issue against him, and affirm the trial court's judgment.
/Bill Whitehill/
BILL WHITEHILL
JUSTICE 170947F.P05
JUDGMENT
On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. DF-16-23071.
Opinion delivered by Justice Whitehill. Justices Francis and Fillmore participating.
In accordance with this Court's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal. Judgment entered May 21, 2018.