T h i s pr oce edi n g a r i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2006- CV Q
- 001580- C1 , s t y l ed Cam el i a R. Sae n z and New I m age 1 Cos m et ol ogy I

ns t i t ut e v. Le t i ci a Lam ar Bot el l o , pe nd i ng i n t he C o unt y C o urt at Law N o . 1, W eb b C o unt y , T exas , t he H o no rable A l vi no J. M o ral es presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No. 04-08-00562- CV IN RE L eticia L amar BOTE LLO Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 Opinion by : Kar en Ang elini , J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini , J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion , J ustice Steven C. Hilbig , J ustice Deliver ed and f

iled: November

26, 2008 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS CONDI TI ONAL L Y GRANTED Re lator L e tic ia L amar B ote llo ob ta ine d a $4 5, 00 0. 00 de fa

ult jud g me nt a g a ins t r e a l pa

rt y in interest Camelia R. Saenz. A y ear and a half later, Saenz soug ht to set aside the defa ult judgment by fi lin g a pe tit ion fo r a bill of re vie w in the tr ia l court . The tr ia l court g ra nte d th e pe tit ion

fo r a bil l of re vie w a nd se t a sid e the de fa

ult jud g me nt, but di d n ot d isp os e of B ote llo ’s c a se on

the me ri ts. No w, in a mand amus pe tit ion

fi le d in this co ur

t, B ote llo se e ks to h a ve the or de r gra nti ngbil l of re view vac ated, ther eby restoringthe def

aul t j u d gm ent in her f

avor. B otello argues the bill of revie w orde r is an abuse of discre tion because , amongother things, Sae nz failed to prove he r own la c k o f f a ult or ne g li gence wi th re sp e c t to the de fa ult jud g me nt a g a ins t he r. We a sk e d Sa e nz to04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 2- respond to Botello’s mandamus petit ion, but no response was filed. Be cause we c onclude the tr ial court abused its discr etion in g ranting the bill of revie w, and Bote llo ha s no adequate reme d y by appea l, we conditionally

g rant manda

mus relief. M A N D A M U S S TA N D A R D O F REVIEW Mandamus re lief is available only when the tr ial court a bused its discretion and the r elator has no adequate re medy

by appea l. In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W .3d 124, 135-36 (Te x . 2004); W alker v . Pack

er , 827 S.W .2d 833, 839-42 (Te x . 1992). In deter mining whe ther ther e has been a n abuse of discretion jus tify ing mandamus relief , we consider whether the trial court’s r uling wa s one compelled by

the fa cts and c ircumstance s, or was a rbitrar y , un re as o n ab l e, or reac hed without ref ere nce to any

g uiding r ules or princ iples. J

oh ns on v . F

ou rth Cou rt o

f A pp e als , 700 S.W .2d 916, 91 7 ( Te x. 19 85 ); Downer v. Aquam arine Operators, Inc

. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 241-42 (Te x . 1985). “A bill of re view which se ts a side a prior judgme nt but doe s not dispose of the ca se on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable.” See Jordan v. J ordan , 907 S.W .2d 471, 472 (Tex. 1995). Under these c ircumstance s,“[a]n erroneously g ranted b i l l of revie w is eff ectively a void orde r g rantinga new

trial and is an abuse of discretion that aff ords no adequate re medy

at law.” In re Nat’l Unity Ins. Co. , 963 S.W .2d 876, 877 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig . proce eding ) (a n int e rlocu to ry order

g ra nti ngbil l of

re vie w i s r e vie wa

ble by mand a mus ); contra In re M oreno , 4 S. W. 3 d 2 7 8 , 2 8 0
- 8 1 ( T e x. App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] 1999, orig . proce edi n g ) (a n interlocutory
or de r gra nti ngbil l of

re vie w i s n ot r e vie wa

ble by mand a mus be c a

us e a rel ato r ha s an a de qu a te
reme dy by appea l of the eve ntual final judg ment).

N O A D EQU A TE RE M E DY B Y A P P E AL He re , th e or de r g ra

nti ngbi ll of re vie w d oe s n ot d isp os e of B ote llo ’s c a se on

the me ri ts. Be cause the orde r g rantingbill of review is interloc utory and unappe alable, B otello does not have04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 3- an ade quate r emedy

by appea l. Se e Nat ’l

Un ity , 963 S.W .2d at 87 9 (c o n d i tionally g ranting
ma n d amu s r e li e f

to v a c a te ane r

r o n e o u s , i nt e r l o c ut o r

y o r d e r g r an ti n g b il l o f

r e v ie w )
. We n e xt a

n a ly ze whether the trial cour

t abused its discretion in g rantingthe bill of review petition. B ILL O F RE V I E W R EQU I R EM ENTS A bill of review

is an eq u i t ab l e p roce edingbroug ht by a par ty seekingto set aside a pr ior judgmen t t h at i s n o longe r subject to cha lleng e by motion for new tria l or appe al. Transw orld Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Briscoe , 722 S.W .2d 407, 407 (Tex. 1987). Gene rally , to preva il, a bill of review plaintiff must plead and pr ove: (1) a meritorious defe nse to the ca use of ac t i o n u p on which the judgme nt is based, (2) which he or she was preve nted from makingby the fra ud, acc ident, or wrong ful act of the opposing party

or off icial mistake, (3) unmix ed with any fault or neg lige nce on his or he r own par t. Caldwell v. Barnes , 15 4 S.W. 3d 93 , 96 (T e x. 20 04 ); Ba k e r v . G old sm ith , 582 S.W .2d 404, 40 6- 07 (T e x. 19 79 ). Ho we ve r, wh e n an iss ue of no n- se rv ic e is ra ise d, the bil l of re vie w p la int if

f m us t plead a nd prove only

that “he or

she wa s never

serve d with proce ss.” C

a ldw e ll , 1 5 4 S
. W
. 3d at 97. “Proof of non-ser vice . . . will conc lusively establish the third and only element that bill of re view pla int if fs are re quire d to pr ov e wh e n th e y are a sse rt ingla c k o f s e rv ic e of pr oc e ss a s th e ir

on ly defe nse.” Id .; see also Ross v. Nat’l Center for Emp. of the Disabled , 1 9 7 S. W. 3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 7
- 9 8 ( T e x. 2006). The gr ounds upon which a bill of re view ca n be obtained a

re na rrow be cause the proc edure conflicts with the funda

mental policy

that judgme nts must become final at some point. Tra ns wor ld , 7 2 2 S
. W
. 2 d

at 4 0 7 (c i t i n g Al e

x an de r v . H

age do rn , 226 S.W .2d 996, 998 (Tex. 1950)). B ILL O F RE V I E W P ROO F Be cause the bill of review requirements a re stre amlined when a

party seeks a bill of review on the g round of non- service , we must deter mine the g rounds upon which Saenz soug ht bill of review relief
.04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 4- I n her bill of re view petition, Saenz alleg ed she was “ser ved with this lawsuit on September 14, 2004, an d was inst ructe d to show up to Court for the Calenda r Call hear ing which was se t for Dec ember

1, 2004.” Saenz fu rt h er al l eged she “wa s never instructed to file a

n answe r.” Sae nz reque sted her bill of r eview be g rante d beca use “she was not g iven the rig ht and cor rec t information at the time of ser

vice” and she “ was instructe d to show up at the C al endar Call hearingset for Dec ember

1, 2004.” Despite the meag er alleg ations in Saenz’s bill of review petiti on, we can dis cer n two g rounds fo r b ill of re vie w r e lie f f

ro m th e tr ia l r e c or d. F ir st, Sa e nz a rgue d s he wa s n ot pr op e rl y se rv e d b e c a

us e the servic e pape rs did not include a co p y o f the citation, which would have informe d her to file a n
answe r. Second, Sae nz arg ued eve n if she wa s serve d with the citation, including a notice of se tting in her ser vice pa pers a mounted to a

n officia l mistake
. This notice of setting stated the c ase w as set for “ dispositi onal calendar ” on “De cembe r 1, 2004 at 8:30 a.m.” The trial court did not spec ify the g round upon which its orde r g rantingbill of review w as base d. We first addre ss Saenz’s contention t hat s he was not serve d with the citation. SeeT EX . R. C IV . P. 99. A valid servic e re turn, signe d and sworn to by the process serve r, wa s filed with the trial cour t
c le rk in B ote llo ’s laws uit . T his se rv ic e re tur n s ho ws S aenz wa s se rv e d w ith“ a tr ue c op y of thi s citation toge ther with the a ccompa nying c opy

of the pe tition” on September 14, 2004. At trial, Saenz admitted she was serve d with Bote llo’s petition, but claimed she was not serve d with the citation. The only proof Sae nz offere d on th i s i s s u e wa s her own te stimony , which wa s contradic tory . Saenz testified both that she had be en ser ved with the citation a n d t h at s he had not be en ser ved with the citation. Saenz did not offe r proof of any fac ts and circumstance s to corr oborate her a ssertion that she was not ser

ved with the citation.04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 5- Th e re c ita ls i n a

re tur n of se rv ic e are pr ima fa c ie e vid e nc e a lit ig ant wa s p ro pe rl y se rv e d w ith citation. See Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver , 88 4 S.W. 2d 15 1, 15 2 (T e x. 19 94 ); Mi n v. A v ila , 991 S.W .2d 495, 500-01 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). To defe at the re citals in a re turn of ser vice, a litigant must do more than simply deny service ; a litigant is re quired to cor roborate the d e n ia l o f s e r v ic e w it h e v id e n c e o f

s u p p o rti n g f

a c ts an d c ir c u ms ta

n ces. W a r d v. Nava , 488 S.W .2d 73 6, 73 8 ( Te x. 19 72 ); Av ila , 991 S.W .2d at 501. He re , th e re c ita ls i n th e re tur n of se rv ic e we re pr ima fa c ie e vid e nc e that Sae nz w a s p ro pe rl y
se rv e d w ith t h e c i t a t i o n . E v e n i f t h e t r i a l c o u rt b e l i e v e d o n l y t h e p o rt i o n o f S a e n z ’ s t e s t i m o n y in which she sa id

s h e d id n o t r e c e iv e th e c it a ti o n , Sa e n z’ s me r e d e n ia l w a s n o t e n o u g hto d e f e a t t he prima fac ie evidenc e of proper service of citation as ref lected in the r eturn of se rvice
. Se e Pr im ate , 88 4 S. W.2 d at 15 2; W

ar d , 488 S.W .2d at 738. We, there fore , conclude the trial cour t could not have g rante d the bill of review on the g round of non- service
. We next addre ss Sae nz’s c ontention that including the notice of setting in her ser vice pa pers
was a n officia l mist ake. A t trial, Saenz essentially argued the notice of setting confuse d her. To preva il on this g round, Saenz had to e stablish a ll thre e traditional bill of revie w require ments: ( 1) a meritorious defe nse to Bote llo’s cause of ac tion, (2) which she was preve nted from makingby officia l mistake, (3) unmixed with any fault or ne g lige nce o n h er o wn part. Se e Ro ss , 197 S.W .3d at 798; Cal dwe ll , 154 S.W .3d at 96. I n h e r m and amus pe tit ion , Bo te llo argue s Sa e nz f a ile d to e sta

bli shthe se c on d a

nd thi rd bil l of re view re quirements. We ag ree . As to the second r equire ment, Saenz failed to establish an of ficial mistake. A

n officia l mist ake
occur s when a

court off icer , such as the trial court cler k, actively g ives misinformation to a party , and the misinformation preve nts the party from exercising his or her leg al rig hts. See H anks v. Rosse r , 37804
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 6- S.W .2d 31, 35 (Tex. 1964) (defenda nt was mi sinformed by

trial court c lerk that no de fault judg ment had bee n taken, r esulting in the f iling an or igina l answer

rathe r t h an a motion for new trial or a n appea l). Her e, the notice of setting simply s t at ed the c ase w as set for the trial cour

t’s dispositi onal cale ndar. The notice of se tting did not a ctively g ive Saenz misinformation whic h preve nted her from filing a n answe r in ac corda

nce w ith the instructions in t he citation. As to t he thi rd re qu ir e me nt, Sa e nz f

a ile d to e sta

bli sh he r o wn

la c k o f f a ult or ne g lig e nc e in allowing the default judgme nt to be take n ag ainst her. See J arre tt v . No rth c utt , 592 S.W .2d 930, 930- 31 (Tex. 1979). A lac k of fa ult or neg lige nce in allowing a default judgme nt to be take n encompa sses not only whether the bill of review p l aint iff wa s neg lige nt in allowing the tr ial court to re nder a de fa ult jud g me nt a g a ins t he r, but a lso wh e the r t he bil l of re vie w p la int if

f e xer c ise d d

ue dil ig e nc e in p u rsuing all leg al re medies ag ainst the defa ult judgment. W

inrock Houston Assoc. Ltd. P’shp v. Bergstrom , 8 79 S.W. 2d

14 4, 14 9 ( Te x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [14 th D ist .] 1994 , no wr it) . Ala c k o f f a ult
or n egl i gen ce inc ludes making rea sonable inquiries re g ardingpending litigation. See M elton v. Ryande r , 7 27 S.W. 2d 29 9, 30 2 (T e x. Ap p. —D a lla s 198 7, wr it re f’ d n .r .e .) ; Conrad v. Orellana , 661 S.W .2d 309, 313 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1983, no writ). Ordinar ily , a par

ty must exercise due diligenc e to pursue all lega l remedie s ag ainst a for mer judgmen t b ef

o re fi l i ng a bill of revie w. Caldwell v. Barnes , 975 S.W .2d 535, 537 (Tex. 1998); Magan v. H

ughes Telev ision Netw ork, Inc

. , 727 S.W .2d 104, 105 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1987,
no wr it) . I f le g a l re me die s we re ava ila ble but ig no re d by a

bil l of re vie w p la int if

f, re lie f b y

e qu ita ble bill of review is not ava ilable. Nguyen v. Int ertex , Inc. , 93 S.W .3d 288, 293 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2002, no pet.). This applies e ven if the f ailure to pursue all leg al re medies re sults from the neglig ence or m istake of a party ’s attorne y . Grac e y v . W est , 422 S.W .2d 913, 916 (Tex. 1968);04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 7- Thompson v. He nderson , 4 5 S
. W
. 3 d 2 8 3 , 2 8 8 ( T e x . Ap p . —D a l l a s 2 0 0 1 , p e t
. d e n i e d )
. T r a d i t i o n a l l y, the inquiry

used to deter

mine if a party has bee n diligent is whe ther he and his counsel use d such ca re
a s p r u d e n t a n d c ar e f u l m e nw o u ld

o r d in ar il y

u s e in th e ir o w nc a s e s o f

e qu a l i mp o rta

n c e. In the In te re st o f A .L. H. C. , 49 S.W .3d 911, 916 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2001, pe t. denied). As pr e vio us ly

dis c us se d, it w a s e sta

bli sh e d at th e bil l of

re vie w t ri a l tha t Sae nz w a s p ro pe rl y
serve d with the citation, and this citation informed he r of the ne ed to f ile a timely

answe r to preve nt a def ault judgme nt being taken a g ainst her. Ne verthe less, Saenz did not file an answe r. Additionally , at the bill of revie w trial Saenz testified she appear ed in cour t on Dece mber 1, 2004, for the “ dispositi onal ca lendar ” setting , but the case wa s n o t h eard on this day . Wit hout
e la bo ratin g on

the de ta ils , Sa e nz te sti fi ed sh e lea rned the se tti ngha d b e e n c anc e lle d a nd a de fa ult judgme nt had bee n taken a g ainst her. How ever , the re cord shows the defa ult judgme nt was not signe d
un til Janu ary

5, 20 05 . App are ntl y , th e tr ia l c ourt ha d he ld a he ari ng on Oc tob e r 22 , 20 04 , a nd or a lly g rante d a def

ault judgme nt ag ainst Saenz, but the def ault judgme nt was not signe d until mont hs later. Saenz also testified she hired an attorney , and she relied on her attorney to assist her in setting aside the de fault judgm en t
. S aenz t estified both that she hire d her attorney rig ht after

Dec ember

1, 2004, and t h at she hire d her attorney on Fe bruar

y 10, 2005. Reg ardle ss of when Sae nz hired an attorney , the re cord shows Sae nz did not file a motion for new t rial unt il Fe bruar y 10, 2005, more than thirty day s after

the default judgme nt was signed. Bec ause the motion for new trial wa s untimely , the tr ia l court ha d no jur isd ic tio n to g ra nt a ne w tri a l. SeeT EX . R.C IV . P. 329b(a) , (e) , (f) . At the bill of
re vie w tri a l, ne ith e r Sae nz nor he r attor ne y pr ov ide d a

ny e xplanatio n f

or he r f a ilure to f ile a tim e ly motion for new tria l, or her f ailure to invoke Te x as Rul e o f C i v i l P roce dure 306a (4) to extend the04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

T ex as R ule o f

C i vil P ro ce d ure 3 0 6 a(4 ) p ro vid es: 2 4
. N o not i ce of

j udgme nt . If w ithin tw e n ty d a ys a fter the ju d g m e n t o r o the r a p p e a la b le o rd e r is sig n e d , a p a rty adver s el y af

f ect ed by i t or hi s at t orn ey ha s ne i t her r ece i ved t he not i ce r equi r ed by par agr aph ( 3) of t hi s r ul e n or a cqui r ed ac t u al k n owl edg e of

t h e or der , t h en w i t h r es pec t t o t h at pa r t y a l l t h e per i ods men t i on ed i n par ag r aph ( 1) s h al l beg i n on t he dat e t hat s uch par t y o r h i s a t t o rne y r ece i ved s uch not i ce or a cqui r ed act ual kn owl edge of t he s i gn i ng , wh i che ver occur r ed f

i r s t , but i n n o eve nt s hal l s uch per i od s begi n mo re t han ni net y day s af t er t he ori gi nal j udgment or ot her appe al abl e or der w as s i g n ed. T EX . R. C IV . P. 3 0 6 a(4).

- 8- time for filing a motion for new trial. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 306a(4)
. The de fault judg ment was not 2 appea led. Saenz’s fa i l u re t o fi l e an a nswer to the la

wsuit and her f

ailure to pursue all leg al re medies
ava ila ble pr ior to se e kin g bil l of re vie w re lie f e xemp lif y a la c k of

dil ig e nc e . B e c a

us e Sa e nz f

a ile d to establish her ow n lack of fa u l t o r n eglig ence in not answeringthe suit and in not pursuing othe r available leg al re medies, the trial c ourt’s orde r g ranting bill of revie w was a rbitrar y , unrea sonable,
and ma de wi tho ut re fe re nc e to g uid ing pr inc ipl e s. We, the re fo re , co nc lud e the tr ia l cou rt a bu se d it s discretion in g rantingSaenz’s petition for bill of review
. A TTOR N EY ’ S F EES B ote llo a sk s th is c ourt

to a wa rd he r r e a so na

ble and ne c e ssa ry a tto rn e y ’s fe e s r ela ted to th is
mand amus pr oc e e din g . B ote llo , how e ve r, do e s not sup po rt he r r e qu e st w ithany

a uth or ity . In T e xas, “the a war d of any attorney fee is a fact i ssue which must be passed upon by the trial cour

t.” Int’l Sec

. Life Ins. Co. v. Spray , 468 S.W .2d 347, 349 (Tex. 1971); see Pelto Oil Corp. v. CSX O il &Gas Corp. , 8 04 S.W .2d 583, 587-88 (Te x . App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, writ denied) . We, theref ore, de ny B ote llo ’s re qu e st f

or a tto rn e y ’s fe e s. C ONCL US I ON B e c a us e we c on c lud e the tr ia l c ourt e rr on e ou sly g ra nte d Sa e nz’ s b ill of

re vie w a nd B ote llo h a s n o a d e qu a te r e me dy

b y a p p e a l, th e p e ti ti o nf

o r a w r it o f ma n d a mu s is c o n d it io n a ll y g r an te d
. We
are confide n t t h e t rial cour t will vacate its January

22, 2007, order

g rantingthe petition for bill of04
- 08
- 00 56 2- CV

- 9- re vie w a nd e nte r a n o rd e r d e nyingthe pe tit ion fo r b ill of re vie w in its pla c e . Sho uld the tr ia l c ourt

fa il to comply , then the wr it of mandamus will issue. Kar en Ang elini, J ustice