### NUM BER 13-09- 0027 5-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG
IN THE INTEREST OF M .I .V ., A CHILD
On ap pe al f rom 24t h Dist rict C ou rt of R efu gio C ou nty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re J u st ic es Y añ ez , R o d rig u ez , a n d G arza M emo rand um Opin ion b y Ju stice R od rigu ez Appel lan t W il li e J ames C ole man ch all eng es the t ri al cour t' s d is mis sal of his bi ll of
rev iew in this pate rnity case. By one issue, Cole ma n con ten ds tha t the trial court erred in g ra nti ng the moti on to dismi ss his bil l of re v iew f il ed by the Off ic e of the Atto rn ey Gene ra l
o f T ex as (O AG) , bec ause as an "adj udi cat ed- by -d efault" par ent, Col eman s houl d be per mitt ed to ch all eng e pat er nit y under the same s tatut or

y prov is ion av a ila b le to "ack now led g ed" parents

. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . § 16 0. 30 8 ( Ve r no n 20 08 ) . W e affi r m.2 I. B A CKGRO UND On May 14, 200 7, th e OAG issued a non-agreed child supp ort rev iew order (CSRO),
w hich sta ted thatColema n wa s the bio logical fa the r of M.I.V., a ch ild born to Monica Vasq uezon S eptember 11, 2006. The C SR O des ig nated Col eman and Vasq uezas j oin t
ma naging co nservators and o bliged Colem an to pay Va squez $57 3.0 0 per mo nth in child supp ort for M.I.V. On May 29, 200 7, the OAG filed a pe tition wi th th e trial court to con f irm the non- ag re ed CS RO , and ser v ic e of proces s w as is sued on Ma y 30, 2007. A verif ied
re tur n of ser

v ic e appea rs i n the re cord, in w hic h the sher iff s tates that , on June 12, 2 007, he personal ly

se rv ed C ole man w it h c it ati on and copi es of the OA G' s p eti ti on and CS RO

. It is undi sput ed that Col eman did not appear , answ er the p eti ti on, o r other w is e c ontes t t he CS RO , a n d o n Ju ly

23, 2007, the t ri al cour t ent er ed i ts order

co nfir ming the non- ag re ed CSRO. Colema n f iled no motio n for new trial or any oth er direct ap pea l of the trial court's
order , and monthl y

ch il d s uppor

t w as thereafter w it hhel d from C ole man's pay chec k. On F ebr uar

y 19, 2009, Col eman fil ed a peti ti on for bill o f r e v iew

. In hi s p eti ti on, Col eman c lai med thathe d id not recei v e not ic e of the p ro ce edi ng s t o es tabl is h the pare nta ge o f

and child supp ort for M.I.V. un til July 27, 20 07. Colema n att ache d his
a f f id a vit a nd a n af

f idavit by

Gloria Lop ez, C olem an's signif icant o the r, in suppo rt of his peti ti on. In t hei r aff ida v it s, both Col eman and Lop ezatt est ed th at t hey w er e unaw ar e of M. I.V. and the c hil d s uppor t and parentag e c ase unti l Jul y 2007. Col eman's petiti on furt her
a lle ged th e fo llo wing:

Due to lack of

Notice the Petition er w as una ble to prese nt a [sic] his meri tor iou s d efense of pa re ntag e. At t he ti me parentag e w as adj udi cat ed by d e fa u lt , n o ge n e t ic e vid e n c e e xis t e d o r wa s o rd e re d t o e s t a b li s h p a t e rn it y. On or about Febr uar

y 12, 2009 a Fi nal C erti ficat e of Anal y si s [ ] w as re tur ned to P eti ti oner

w hic h c oncl uded P eti ti oner had a 0.00 00% [si c] of being the father of the c hil d at the b asi s o f this Pet it ion

.3 . . . Petition er h a s n o ad equate legal rem edy now av ailable to avoid the ef fect of the Child Su ppo rt Order signed on July 23, 200 7. Pet itione r did not h av e the f ina nci al abi li ty to actin order

to dis cov er

he w as not t he father of the c hil d unt il mor e tha n thi rt y day s a fter [ the] order

w as si g ned.

. . . Col eman att ached as anot her ex hib itto his peti ti on a documententi tl ed "F ina l Cer ti ficat e of Analy si s," w hic h Col eman cl aims cont ain s the re sul ts of ge neti c t est ing thatprov es he is not the father

of M. I.V. The OAG ans w er ed C ole man's peti ti on and filed a moti on to dis mis s the p eti ti on on the g ro unds that Col eman's pl eadi ng s w er e defic ien t t o i nv oke the t ri al cour t' s j ur is dic ti on
ov er hi s b il l of rev iew

petitio n
. On Apr il 15, 2009, the t ri al cour t hel d a h ear ing on Colem an's pe tition a nd th e OAG's m otion to dism iss, a nd o n April 30, 2 009 , the trial court is sued an order

di smi ss ing C ole man's peti ti on. This appeal foll ow ed.

II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW W e rev iew

the tr ial co urt' s g ra nt o r deni al of a bi ll of re v iew for a n abus e of dis creti on. Tem

ple v. Ar cham bo , 161 S.W .3d 217, 224 (Tex . App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2005, no pet .)

. In re v iew ing the tr ial co urt' s d eter minat ion , w e i ndul g e ev er y presumpt ion i n fav or of the c our

t' s r uli ng
. Garza v. Atto rney Gen . of Tex. , 1 6 6 S

. W

. 3 d 7 9 9 , 8 0 8 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr isti 2 0 0 5, no pet. ). A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on w hen i t ac ts in an
unre ason able and arb it rary man ner or w ithou t referen ce to guiding rules and principles. Id. III . D I S CUS S I ON By one issue, Colem an co nte nds th at th e trial court erred in grantin g t h e OAG's moti on to di smi ss his bil l of rev iew bec ause an "adj udi cat ed- by -d efault" par ent s houl d not be proh ib it ed from req uest ing g eneti c t est ing under the four- y ear

ch all eng ing per iod prov ide d to "ack now led g ed" parent s under the family

co de. See T EX
. F AM
. C OD E A NN . §G ener al l y , bi l l of r ev i ew m ov ant s m ust pl ead and pr ov e ( 1) a m er i t or i ous def ense t o t he u nder l y i ng 1 cause ofact i on, (2 ) w hi ch t he m ov ant s wer e pr ev ent ed f r om m aki ng b y t he f r aud, acci dent or wr ongf ul act of th e o p p o s i n g p a rty o r o ff i c i a l m i s ta k e , a n d th a t w a s (3 ) u n m i x e d w i th a n y fa u l t o r n e g l i g e n c e o n th e i r o w n p a rt. C al dw el l v. Bar nes , 154 S. W

. 3d 9 3, 96 ( T ex. 200 4)

. I n cases w her e t he m ov ant pet i t i ons f or a bi l l ofr ev i ew based sol el y on non- ser v i ce, t he m ov ant i s r el i ev ed o fest abl i shi ng t he fi rst t wo el em ent s, and pr oofof n o n -s e rv i c e c o n c l u s i v e l y e s ta b l i s h e s th e th i rd e l e m e n t. I d. at 96- 97. H owev er , i t i s not ent i r el y cl ear f r om C o l e m a n 's p e ti ti o n w h e th e r o r n o t h e is a l l e g i n g n o n -s e rv i c e ; h i s p e ti ti o n a n d s u p p o rti n g a ff i d a v i ts m e re l y s ta te he h ad n o " not i ce" of

t he p r oceedi ngs a nd was not " awar e" of M

. I

. V. or t he p r oceedi ngs. I n l i ght of t he v er i f i ed sher i ff ' s r et ur n of

ser v i ce i n t he r ecor d, we con cl ude t hat C ol em an was not al l egi ng n on- ser v i ce. And ev en i fwe wer e t o assu m e t hat he a l l eged non- ser v i ce, C ol em an' s bi l l of r ev i ew pet i t i on i s not base d sol el y on t hat cl ai m — he a l so ba ses hi s pet i t i on on w hat he appea r s t o cont end i s a m i st ake offa ct and/ or newl y di scov er ed evi de nc e reg ard i ng t he pa ren t ag e o f M

. I

. V

. , as pu rpo rt ed l y revea l ed by ge ne t i c t es ti n g
. W e t he refore concl ude t hat t he a r guabl y l esser bur den pl aced on b i l l of r ev i ew m ov ant s sol el y al l egi ng n on- ser v i ce do es n o t a p p ly t o t h e f a c ts o f th i s c a s e
. See I n r e O f f i ce of the At t or

ney G en. , 276 S. W

. 3d 6 11, 618 ( T ex. A p p .– H o u s to n [1 s t D i s t.] 2 0 0 8 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g ). 4 160 .30 8 (provi ding tha t "a sig nat oryof an ackn owl edgm ent of pate rnity. . . may comm ence a proceed ing to chal len g e the ac know le d gm e n t

. . . on t he bas is of fraud, dur ess , or mater ial mis tak e of fact .

. . befor e the f our th anniv ersar

y of the date the a ck now led g ment

. . . is fi l e d " )

. H o w e v e r , w e d o n o t r e a c h C o l e ma n ' s a rg u me n t u n d e r t h e fa mil yco de beca use, as a thresh old m atte r, he is not en titled to a bill of rev iew und er the f acts of

this
cas e. "A bi ll of re v iew

i s a n eq uit abl e proceed ing broug ht by a pa rt y se eki ng to setas ide a pr ior j udg ment t hat i s no l ong er su bje ct to c hal len g e by a mot ion for n ew

tr ial or appeal ." Caldwell v. Bar nes , 154 S.W .3d 9 3, 96 ( Tex . 200 4)

. Beca use the p ro cedure c onfli cts w it h the fundamenta l pol ic y

thatj udg ments must become final at some p oin t, the g ro unds upon
w hic h a bil l of re v iew

can be obtai ned are nar ro w . Temple , 161 S.W .3d a t 223

. Thus, the burden on a bi ll of re v iew mov ant i s a heavy

one. Id. 1 At t he outset , "to inv oke the eq uit abl e pow ers of the cour t," the bi ll of re v iew

mov ant
mu st f ile a p eti ti on th at "al leg e[s ] factu all y and w it h par

ti cul ar it y " thatthe pr ior j udg ment
w as re nder ed as the re sul t of fraud, acc ide nt, w ro ng ful ac t of the oppos it e par ty , or off ic ial mis tak e "unmi x ed" w it h the mov ant' s o w n neg lig ence. Bake r v. Goldsm it h , 582 S.W .2d5

404, 408 ( Tex . 197 9) ; In re Of fice of t he Attor ney Gen. , 2 7 6 S

. W

. 3 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 8 (T e x. A p p
. – H o u s t o n [ 1 s tD i s t

. ] 2 0 0 8 , o r i g
. p ro c e e d i n g )

. T h e m o v a n t" mu s tfu rt h e r a l l e g e , w it h particu larity , s wo rn f acts suf f icient to constitu te [a ] def ense and , as a pretrial m atte r, pr esentpr ima facie proof to s uppor t t he c ontent ion ." Bake r , 58 2 S. W .2 d at 40 8. A pr i ma facie meri tor iou s d efense i s e sta bli shed if the mov ant' s defense is not barred as a mat ter of law and he w ould b e ent itled to judgme nt on retrial if n o cont rary

e v iden ce is of

fered ; this is a q uest ion of law

for t he tr ial co urt. Id. at 408- 09. He re , we will a ss u m e , with o u t d e cid i n g , t h a t Co le m a n al le ged fa ct s co n st it u ti n g a meri tor iou s d efense to the under ly ing ca use of actio n b y im ply ing i n hi s p eti ti on th at t he adju dicatio n of

M.I.V.'s pa renta ge w as errone ous b ecau se ge n e t ic t esting purpo rtedly show s C ole man i s n ot M .I. V.' s father

. How ev er , C ole man nonet hel ess w hol ly fail ed to allege any fa cts in his pet ition fo r bill of rev iew tha t the def ault jud gmen t rende red against him w as the result of

f raud , accide nt, wrongf ul act of the OA G, or of

f ic ia l m is t ake. As a
re sul t, his pl eadi ng w as ins uf f ici e nt t o i nv oke the e q uit abl e pow ers o f the tr ial co urt, see Bake r , 582 S.W .2d a t 408 , and C ole man fail ed to meet his heavy burd e n to all eg e facts est abl is hin g the nar ro w g ro unds for a bil l of rev iew

. See Tem ple , 1 6 1 S

. W. 3 d a t2 2 3

. W e the refore con clude thatthe tri al court did not ab use its discretio n in dism issing Colem an's peti ti on. S e e G a r

za , 166 S.W .3d a t 808

. Col eman's so le is sue is ov er ru led

.

IV. C ONCL US I ON The order

of the t ri al cour

t dis mis si ng Col eman's peti ti on for bil l of rev iew is aff ir med.
NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv er ed and filed the 3rd day of June, 2010.