NO. 07-07 -029 4-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL A AU GU ST 4, 2 008

_________

_________

_________

___ IN THE MATTER OF THE MA RR IAGE OF LORI LE IGH MAYLES NOONAN AND THOMAS A. NOONAN, JR.

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 19 8 T H DI ST RI CT COU RT OF MC CUL L OC H CO UNT Y; NO . 200 6130; HO NO RA BLE E MI L KAR L PR OH L, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before CAMPBE LL a nd HANCOCK an d PIRT LE, JJ. OPIN ION App ellant , Lori Le ig h M a yle s Noona n (Lori), app eals th e granting of a sum ma ry j ud g me nti n fav or

o f Tho ma s A

. N oo na n, J r . ( Tho ma s )

. W e affi r m. Factual and Procedu ra l Back g ro und Lor i and Thomas w ere mar ri ed i n 1973. I n 2001, the par ti es ex ecut ed a post -n upti al ag reement. In Janua ry 2003, Thomas fil ed a peti ti on for div orce. A final hear ing on t he d ivor ce wa s sc h e d u le d fo r Mo n d a y, Ma rch 1 7 , 2 0 0 3

. T h e F rid a y b e fo re th e f in a l h e a rin g, Lori f iled an answer throu gh a retaine d atto rney. At the f inal he aring, an agreed d iv orce decree, w hic h i ncl uded an agreement inc ide nt to div orce, w as entered. No moti on for new2

trial w as f iled an d no app eal w as att em pte d. On Novemb er 26, 2 0 0 3 , L o ri f il ed h er f irst peti ti on for bil l of rev iew

. The fi rstb il l of rev iew w as subs eq uentl y

non- sui ted b y

Lor i on Ja n u a ry 27 , 2 0 0 4 . On Ju ly 30 , 2 0 0 4 , L o ri a n d T h o m a s f ile d an in fo rm a l m a rria ge re g is trati on. In J une 2005, Lor i filed a peti ti on for div orce from Thomas. Subs eq uentl y , on Febr uar y 7, 2006, the tr ial cour

t for the sec ond div orce entered a par ti al summar

y j udg ment against Lo ri on certain m atte rs regarding the prop erty of the pa rties. Lori then f iled the bill of rev iew t hatwas d ismissed b y

su mm aryju dgme nt on Sep tem ber 12, 2 006

. L ori appe als from thi s s ummary

j udg ment. Throug h her

se cond bil l of rev iew , Lor i is attac ki ng the div orce decree ent ered on Ma rc h 1 7 , 2 0 0 3

. S p e c i fi c a l l y , L o r i re q u e s t e d t h e t r i a l c o u rts e ta s i d e t h e a g re ement inc ide nt t o di v orce and t hat p orti on of the jud g ment of d ivor ce that inc or porated the ag re ement. F urther , Lori reques ted t he tr ial co urt mak e a n ew di v is ion of the p ro per

ty div ide d i n the or ig ina l div orce d e cre e . L or i’ s req uestfor reli ef, throug h the bi ll of re v iew proces s, is founded upon the all eg ati ons that Thomas commi tted fraud. Acc ordin g to the peti ti on, t he fraud w as in the n ature of fraudul ent represent ati ons re gar d in g w hat t he re lat ion shi p o f t h e p a rt i e s wo u l d b e a ft e r t h e d i v o rc e . L o r i p o s i t s t h a tT h o ma s ’ s a c t i o ns prev ented her

f ro m ass erti ng cl aims ag ain st him for fraud on t he c ommunity , frau d on a spous e’s se parate p ro per ty , breach of f idu ci ar

y duty , duress , and ov er re achi ng . Thomas fil ed a tradi ti onal moti on for summar y j udg ment all eg ing that, as a matter of law , Lor i coul d not est abl is h a pr ima facie cas e in suppo rt of he r bil l of rev iew

. The tr ial court grante d a pa rtial summ aryjudgmen t, reservin g t h e issue of atto rney’s fees. T here af ter, T hom as f iled a mo tion for su mm aryju dgme nt on the issue of atto rney’s fees.3

The tr ial co urt g ra nted thi s summar y j udg ment and ente re d a fin al jud g ment. This appeal re sul ted from the entr

y of thi s fin al jud g ment.

Standa rd of Rev iew A party m ay prev ail on a s ummary

j udg ment moti on by

co ncl usi v ely

es tabl is hin g the absen ce of anyg enui ne i ss ue of a mate ri al fact and that the par ty i s e nti tl ed to j udg ment as a matt er

of law

. T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a(c). If t h e sum ma ry

judgmen t mo v antis a defendant, the mov ant must conc lus iv ely negat e at lea st one of the ele ments of the nonm o va n t ’s ca u s e o f

a c t i o n o r m u s tco n c lu s ive ly p ro ve e a c h e le m e n to f a n a f f ir m a t ive d e fe n s e . R a n d a l l ’ s F o o d M a r k e t s , I n c . v . J o h n s o n , 8 9 1 S

. W. 2 d 6 4 0 , 6 4 4 ( T e x . 1 9 9 5 )

. W e re v iew the g ra nti ng of a tradi ti onal su mmary j udg ment moti on de n ovo , a p p lyin g the stan dard s set outin Nixon v. M r. Prop. Mgmt. Co., 6 90 S. W .2d 546 , 548 -49 (Te x . 198 5): 1. T he m ovant for su mm aryju dgme nt has the b urde n of sh owi ng that th ere is no genuine issue of

mat erial fact an d th a ti ti s e n t it led to judgmen t as a matter of law

. 2. In de term ining w het her the re is a dispu t e d issue of mat erial fact precl udi ng su mmary jud g ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the n on- mov ant w il l be tak en as tr ue. 3. Ev er y reason abl e i nferenc e mustbe i ndul g ed in fav or of the n on- mov ant and any doubt s resolv ed in its favor. Bi ll of Rev iew A bi ll of re v iew

i s a n eq uit abl e acti on broug ht bya pa rty to a prev iou s s uitse eki ng to setaside a jud gmen t w hich is no lon ger appea lable o r subject to a mo tion fo r new trial. See King R anch , Inc. v. Chap ma n, 118 S.W .3d 742 , 751 (Te x . 200 3). A bill of review is4

proper w here a p arty

has ex erci sed due di li g ence to p ro sec ute a ll adeq uate leg al reme dies agai n s ta f o rmer judgm entand , at the time th e bill of rev iew is filed, there re m a in s n o a d e qu a t e l e ga l re m e d y a va il a b le t h ro u gh n o fa u lto f t h e p ro p o n e n t

. B a k e r v. Gol dsmi th, 582 S. W .2d 404, 408 (Tex . 197 9)

. Ordin ar il y , one w it h an av ail abl e appel lat e re medy w ho fail s t o pursue that re medy i s n ot en ti tl ed to se ek re li ef byw ay of a bi ll of re v iew

. Ri z k v . M ay ad, 6 03 S.W .2d 773, 775 (Tex

. 1980)

. Beca use of the fundamental imp o rt a n c e o f t h e fi n a l i ty o f j u d g me n t s , b i l l s o f re v i e w a re e x a mi n e d c l o s e lyand the g ro unds upon w hic h a bil l of rev iew can be obtai ned are nar ro w and rest ri cte d. Al ex ander v . H ag edor n, 14 8 T e x. 5 6 5 , 2 26 S. W .2d 9 96, 9 98 ( 1950)

. To suc ces sfull y ch all eng e a jud g ment b y b ill o f

rev iew , t he pet it ion er

mustprov e: ( 1) a mer it or iou s d efense to the caus e of act ion ; ( 2) that peti ti oner w as prev ented from maki ng the defense by the fraud, accide nt, o r w rongf ul act of the op posite party; and (3) thatthe failure to m ake th e de fense w as unmix ed w it h any

fault or neg li g ence of the pet it ion er . Ki ng R anch, Inc ., 118 S. W .3d at 75 1 (citing Alexande r, 226 S. W .2d at 998 .). Fraud i n rela ti on to a bi ll of re v iew att ack on a final ju d g ment i s e it her extr ins icor int ri nsi c. Id. at 752. Onl y extr ins icfraud w il l suppo rta bi ll of rev iew . I d. ( ci ti ng Tic e v . C ity of Pasaden a, 76 7 S. W .2d 7 00, 7 02 ( Tex . 198 9) ). Extrin sic f ra ud i s fraud t hat d eni ed a par ty the oppor

tuni ty to fully l it ig ate a t t ri al all the ri g hts or defenses that coul d hav e been asserte d. Id. Int rinsic frau d, by c o n t ra s t , r e la tes to the m erits of the issue s thatw ere present ed and presuma b ly were or sh oul d hav e been settl ed i n the former acti on. Id. W it h in t h a tt e rm a re i n c lu d e d s u c h m a t t e rs a s f ra u d u le n tin s t ru m e n t s , p e rj u re d t e s t im o n y, or any m atter w hic h w as actu all y

present ed to and cons ide re d by the tr ial co urt i n render ing5

the j udg ment as sai led

. Id. Such fraud w il l not suppo rt a bil l of rev iew bec ause each par

ty must g uard ag ain st adv erse findi ng s o n i ss ues direct ly present ed. I d

. (ci ti ng Tic e, 76 7 S.W .2d a t 702 and Al ex ander , 226 S.W .2d a t 998 ). I ss ues under ly ing the jud g ment attac ked by

a bi ll of re v iew

are i ntr ins icand thus hav e no probati v e v alu e on the fraud neces sar

y to a bi ll of re v iew

. Id. Ana ly sis Lor i cont ends th a t T h o m a s commi tted fraud be caus e he w as onl y abl e to g et he r to s ig n the pos t- nupti al ag re ement by ov ercomi ng her

free w il l a n d t h is post- nupti al ag re emen tb e c a me t h e a g re e me n ti n c i d e n tt o d i v o rc e t h a tw a s e mb o d i e d i n t h e fi n al decree of di v orce. F urther , s he c ontends that, at the ti me of the di v orce she did not know the e xtent or

v alu e of the mari tal es tat e . To suppor t t hese all eg ati ons, Lor i set s for th a my ri ad of factual al leg ati ons of Thomas’s al leg ed a b u si v e c onduct dur ing the marr iag e. Fi nal ly , Lor i arg ues that the dis propor ti onate proper

ty di v is ion ca n notbe a ll ow ed to st and. As sumi ng , a rg uendo , t h a tL o r i ’ s c o n t e n t i o n re g a rd i n g t h e o r i g i n al post -n upti al ag re ement i s c or re ct, i t doe s n ot de monstrate e xtr ins icfraud as to the 2003 div orce decree. T he reco rd ref lects tha t Lori em ployed an at t o rn ey to repre senther in the d iv orce proceed ing

. The record furt her reflect s t hat t he attor ney f il ed an answer

and appeared at the fin a l h e a rin g o n the div orce. D ur ing thathear ing , Lor i’ s a ttor ney made t he foll ow ing sta tement, She ex press ed c oncer n to me thatal though she w as not s ure aboutthe extent and mag nit ude of t he par ti es’ est ate, that she w as of the opi nio n tha t6

she was only

going t o receive ap proximate ly 2 0 pe rcent of

the to tal esta te in ter ms of the propose d ag re ement. *** * She c ame bac k l ater

F ri day after noon and deli v ered me a handw ri tten copy of that p ost nupti al ag re ement.. ..H ad a phone c onv ersat ion w it h Ms. N oonan y este rday aft erno on a nd e x plaine d to he r that in m y opinio n she had at least a reason abl e c hance of setti ng t h e p o stn upti al ag re ement as ide bec ause she all eg ed s he had not s ig ned i t v olu ntar il y , and she, based on represent ati ons made to me, appeared that itmig ht be [un] cons ci onabl e and that she did not hav e full di sc los ure of the ass ets of the p arti es at t he ti me she ex ecut ed i t. T his state me nt clea rly shows tha t, at the time the decre e com plaine d of w as en tered , Lori had knowl edge of

a possible defense to the e n t ry o f the agreem entinciden t to divorce based on t he pos t- n u p ti a l a gre ement. As su ch, thi s was an i ss ue th at c oul d hav e been p re s e n t e d t o t h e t ri a l c o u rta n d , t h e re fo re , ca n n o tse rve a s t h e b a s is fo r a b il l o f re vie w. Id. Lor i als o c ontends thatshe l ack ed c apaci ty to si g n the 2003 div orce decree. Howev er , her

att or ney ’s represent ati ons to t he c our t are c ontrar

y to that posi ti on. In t he same s tatementto the c our t q uoted abov e, Lo ri ’s att or ney furth er ex pla ine d tha t s he had come to his off ic e on the morni ng of t he hear ing and ask ed to si g n off on t he ag re ement. Lor i ex pla ine d tha t s he di d feel press ured and unabl e to sta nd up to g oing throug h the proceed ing s. Lor i then ask ed th at he appear for h er and si g n off

on t h e agreement. In re spons e to the t ri al cour t’ s q uest ion w hether

Lor i w as ask ing the tr ial co urt t o approv e the ins tr uments , t ri al couns el answered, “ That’s my understa ndi ng . She ask ed me to g o ahead and s ig n off .” Ag ain , al l thes e s tatement s s how thatLor i, for w hatev er

reaso n, un dersto od w hat wa s abo ut to take pla ce an d did no t choo se to pe rsona lly g o throu gh the proce ss. Y et , Lo r i ’ s a ffid av i t c l ea r l y d em on s trat es t ha t s he w as pres en t i n th e c ou rtroo m a t th e ti me7

the h ear ing w as condu cte d. In reviewing Lor i’ s e v ide nce of coerci on and duress that ov ercame h e r free w il l or demons trated a l ack

of capac ity , w e find that near ly al l of the all eg ed c oerci on w as dur ing the marr iag e and deal t w it h the ex ecut ion of the o ri g ina l post nupti a l a greement. As st ated abov e, Lo ri w as aw are of thi s a nd, i n fact, her att or ney dis cus sed thes e matt ers w it h her . Therefore , it w as, at best , i ntr ins icfraud and woul d not suppo rta bi ll of

rev iew

. Id. As to the ev ide nce that Thomas t hreatened her by st ati ng that if L o ri f o u gh tt he d iv orce she would g et less be cause he w ould spen d it all on atto rney’s fees, w e not e tha t Lor i has prov ide d the Court w it h no cas es suppo rt ing the proposi ti on th at a t h re a t to li ti g ate i s t he ty pe of coe rc ion thatwoul d ov ercome s omeone’ s free w il l or remo ve t heir capa city to conse nt no r have we foun d an y auth orityto supp ort this proposi ti on. Lor i als o c ontends t h a t T h o mas’ s react ion to her co nsul ti ng w it h an attor ney and fili ng an a nsw er

w as so v iol e n t th at i t ov ercame h er ow n free w il l. To t his end, Lor i has provided the af

f idavit of a w itness, Claudia Davis. Yet, an examin ation of L ori’s af f idavit re v eal s t hat t he i nci dent in q uest ion occur re d before Thomas fil ed for div orce. After the all eg ed i nci dent, Lor i met w it h an attor ney , di sc uss ed th e propose d dec re e, and, ind eed, the attor ney filed an answer and appeared for Lor i. Therefore, the v er y i ss ue Lor i sai d the o u t b u rs twa s d e s ig n e d t o p re ve n t , L o ri s e e k in g l e ga l a s s is t a n c e , o c c u rr e d

. Ac c o rd in gl y, w e c a n n o t say

Lor i’ s free w il l w as ov ercome b y Thomas’ s a ll eg ed duress and coerci on. F in a ll y, wit h L o ri ’s d e c la ra t io n t h a t t h e p ivo t a l a b u s ive in c id e n t o c c u rr e d n o ta d a y o r two b e fo r e t h e f in a l d e c re e , L o ri ’s a t t o rn e y p a rt ic ip a t in g i n t h e f in a l h e a ri n g, a n d L o ri ’s o wn presenc e i n the court ro om, w e are strain ed to concl ude that Lori w as not aw are of al l that8

w as going on a nd w as una ble to me anin gfu lly p articipat e in the t rial. Rathe r, all of these ma tters w ere kno w n to Lo ri and he r attorne y and would , at be st, be classif ied as intrinsic fraud t hat woul d notsu ppor t her bi ll of re v iew

. Id. F ina ll y , her fail ure to pursue an appe al w hen she w as aware o f t he issues and t he possib le me rits of a n app eal dem onst rate a lack of dil ig ence and, therefore, are neg li g ence attr ibu tabl e to Lor i. As su ch, thi s a ls o defeats her claim for relief v ia a bill of rev iew . Riz k, 603 S.W .2d at 775 . At the e nd o f the da y , it appears t o t h is Cou rtthatw hat i s p re sent ed i s n othi ng more tha n al leg ati ons that the d e cre e o f

div orce prov ide d an ine q uit abl e and unfair di v is ion of the mar it al est ate. An in ju s t ic e in a f in a l o rd e r wi ll n o tsu p p o rtre li e f fo r a p a rt y b y a b il l o f re vie w. Se e Cro u c h v. McGaw , 134 Te x . 633 , 138 S.W .2d 94, 96 (1940). Accordin gly , w e f ind th at th e trial court did not er r in g ra nti ng the summar y j udg ment. Atto rn ey ’s F ees As the is sue of attor ney ’s fees w as dependenton our re v ersal of the g ra nti ng of the sum ma ry

judgmen t, w e af

f irm the trial court’s aw ard of atto rney’s fees. Con cl usi on Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Lori ’s i ss ues, w e aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial co urt.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice