### In The C ou rt o f A p p ea ls Si x t h Appe l l at e Di st r i c t o f Te x as a t Te x ar ka na

______________________________ No . 0 6- 08 -0 01 08 -C V

______________________________

IN T H E IN T E R E S T O F T

. W

. C

. , A M IN O R C H ILD

On Appea l from the 71st J udicial District Court

Har rison County , Texas Trial Court No. 95-0276

B e f o r e M o r r i s s , C

. J. , C a

rt e r a n d M o s e l e y , JJ. Me mor a nd

um O pin ion

by Chi e f Jus tic e Mo rr iss"A bill of review is a n independe nt equitable ac tion broug ht by a p arty to a forme r ac tion 1 seek in g t o s e t a si de a j ud gment no lo nger ap peal abl e or s ub jec t t o m ot io n fo r new tr ial ." State v. 1985 Chevrolet Pick

up Truck , 7 78 S.W. 2d

46 3, 46 4 ( Te x. 19 89 ). A b ill of re vie w mus t be fi le d in the cour t that rende red the judgme nt. Richards v. Comm'n for Lawyer Discipline , 81 S.W .3d 506, 508 (Tex. A

pp.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.). When a trial court has jurisdicti o n t o rende r the judg ment complained of , a bill of re v i ew p roce eding is the exclusive method of vacating the judgme nt. McEwe n v. Harrison , 162 Tex. 125, 345 S .W.2d 706, 710 (1961). Throug hout this opi nion, our ref ere nce to the " orig inal order " r efe rs to this order. 2 2 MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON Over thirteen y ear s has passed sinc e Wendell N. Warne r wa s found to be the f ather of, and was orde red to pa

y child support for, T.W.C. Since that orig inal o rd er, no le ss than three bills of revie w and two enf

orce ment actions hav e been filed, ultimately culminating in a

J uly 31, 2008, 1 jud g me nt ag a ins t War

ne r fo r $42 ,8 18 .9 9 in pas t due c hil d sup po rt . War ne r a pp e a ls tha t ju dg me nt, citing the result of the f

irst bill o f re v i ew

— which set a side the orig inal child support order —but ig n o r in g th e r e s u lt

o f th e th ir d b il l of r e v ie w

— w h ic h r e in s tate d th e o r ig in a l c h il d s u p p o rt or d e r . We aff irm the 2008 judg ment, beca use the ultimate e ffe ct of the le g al maneuve ring is the reinstateme nt of the orig inal child support order

. F ir st, we se t ou t th e de ta ile d le g a l hi sto ry , th e n w e dis c us s th e le g a l e ff e c t. T h e o r ig in a l o r d e r o f p a te r n it y a n d c h il d s u

p p o rt w a s s ig n e d Ja n u a r y 17, 1996. 2 App rox im ate ly

ten mo nt hs lat er, W arne r fi led a pet it io n for bi ll of r evi ew (t he "fi rst bi ll of r evi ew") challeng ing the order . On April 21, 1997, the trial c ourt signe d a defau l t j u d gm ent vac ating the orig inal order

.I n Texas, as a ne w independe nt cause of ac tion, the bill of review should be a ssigne d a 3 differ ent cause num ber than the judg ment being attacke d. Am an da v . M on tgo me ry , 877 S.W .2d 482, 485 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 1994, no writ). The Attorney Gene ral' s bill of r eview a lso was not verified. To be tim e ly , a

mot ion fo r n e w tri a l mu st b e fi le d w ith in t hir ty da y s a ft e r t he judg me nt i s 4 signe d. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(a)

. Thus, any motion for new trial should have be en filed by J anuar y 18, 1998. The re cord doe s not contain an y m o t ion under Rule 306a. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 306a (e x tends dea dlines for filing motion for new tria l for up to ninety day s after judgme nt is signed if pa rt y fa ils to r e c e ive c le rk ' s no tic e of jud g me nt or fa ils to a c qu ir e a c tua l no tic e of jud g me nt w ith in tw e nty da y s o f j ud g me nt)

. Al tho ug h a tr ia l c ou rt may g ra nt a ne w tr ia l un de r its inh e re nt a uth or ity befor e the c ourt loses plenar y power , Rules 5 and 329b of the Te x as Rules of Civil P roce dure do not permit a trial c ourt to enlarg e the time f o r fili ng new tria l motions

. Mo rit z v . P re iss , 121 S.W .3d 71 5, 72 0 ( Te x. 20 03 ) ( un tim e ly mot ion fo r n e w tri a l is nu lli ty

); see T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 5, 329b. 3 On No ve mbe r 2 6, 19 97 , th e Te xas At tor ne y Ge ne ra l f ile d a bil l of re vie w ( the " se c on d b ill of re vie w" ), a lso un de r c a

us e nu mbe r 9 6- 10 42 , a lle g ingWar ne r h a d f a ile d to pr op e rl y

se rv e the fi rs t bill of review. The recor d does not indicate whe ther Warne r wa s serve d with a copy of this petition. 3 The trial c ourt g rante d the Texas Attorney Gene ral' s Offic e a defa ult judgme nt Dec ember

19, 1997. On Fe bruar

y 13, 1998, the t rial court ref err ed the case to "the Master appointed pursuant to Texas Family Code Chapter 201, subc hapter B" and orde red Warne r t o appea r for a hear ing Ma

rch 6, 1998. The re cord doe s not ref lect whether the hear ing was held. On Februa ry 25, 1998, Warner filed an untimely motion for new trial alleg ing the second bill of revie w was a n ex parte motion and had not bee n serve d on Warner. Ba sed on the rec ord befor e us, this motion is a nullity

. The re cord

4 does not establish that the t rial court g rante d sua spont e a ne w trial. The r ecor d contains an or der, in cause number 96-1042, w hich dismissed the proce eding for wa nt of prosec ution July

17, 2000.The proc eeding does not in d i ca t e which of the two petitions with the same ca use number 5 was be in g d is mi s s e d

. T h e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l' s O f

f ic e a r g u e s th is o r d e r d is mi s s e d th e f ir s t bill of revie w filed by Warner. Yet, the trial court had lost plena ry power over the first bill of reviewbefor e the filing of the sec ond bill of review. B eca use there is no recor d that a motion for new trial was filed, t he trial court lost plenar y power over the first bill of review thirty day s after the judg ment was signe d. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(d). Since dismissal was considera bly more than thirty

day s after the first bill of revie w was s i gn ed , t h e trial c ourt lacke d plenar y power to dismi ss the first bill of revie w. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 329b(f)

. Nor is it possible this order dismiss ed for want of pr osecution t h e s ec o n d

b i l l o f re v i ew fi l ed b y t h e At t o rn ey Ge n er al

. A bi l l o f re v i ew i s a s ep ar at e p ro ce ed i n g, a nd the se c on d b ill of

re vie w s ho uld have be e n a ssi g ne d a dif fe re nt c a us e nu mbe r. Th e tr ia l c ou rt , though, ha d also lost plenary power to modify

the g rant of the second bill of re view filed by the Attorney Gene ral be cause the dismiss al order was enter ed more than thirty day s after the judg ment g ranting the bill of review

. Se e id

. The third bill of revie w was a lso not verified. 6 4 B a se d o n th e re c or d b e fo re us , th e or de r o f d ism iss a l a pp e a rs to h a ve no le g a l e ff e c t. Th e de fa

ult 5 judgme nt rende red D ece mber 19, 1997, wa s not appea led or c halleng ed. On May 8, 1998, the Att orney Gene ral filed another bill of review (the "third bill of re view" ), in cause number 98-0469, a lleg ing War ner f ailed to serve t h e Attorne y Gene ral in the fir st bill of

re vie w. War

ne r f ile d a n a ns we r al le g ingthe At tor

ne y Ge ne ra l la c ke d s tand ingto f ile the thi rd

bil l 6 of re view and ha d failed to join T.W.C.'s m other, a nece ssary party , to the l awsuit. The trial c ourt signe d a judg ment November 21, 2003 , reinstating the orig inal order . This judgment wa s not
appea led or c halleng ed. On S e p t e m b e r

1 5 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e A t t o r

n e y G e n e r a l f

i l e d a m o t i o n f o r e n f o r c e m e n t( t h e " f

i r st enfor ceme nt proce eding ") ag ainst Warner unde r the orig inal order . This enfor ceme nt action was fi le d w hil e the thi rd

bil l of re vie w wa s sti ll pe nd ing

. War ne r fi le d a

n a ns we r a sse rt ingre s ju dic a ta"A collater al attack is a n attempt to a

void the binding forc e of a judg ment in a proc eeding 7 no t in sti tut e d f

or the purpo se of c or

re c tin g , mo dif

y ing , o r v a c a tin g the jud g me nt, bu t in or de r t o ob tai n s om e sp eci fi c re l i e f w h i ch t he j ud gment curr ent ly st and s as a bar

again st ." Browning v. Prostok , 165 S.W .3d 336, 346 (Tex. 2005). Gene ra l l y , co l l ater al attac ks on final judg ments are prohibited; only

a void judg ment may b e collate rally attacke d. Id. A void judgme nt is not susceptible to ra tification or conf irmation, and its nullit y

cannot be waived. Easterline v. Be an , 121 Te x. 32 7, 49 S.W. 2d 42 7, 42 9 ( 19 32 ); In re Guardianship of Erickson , 2 0 8 S. W. 3 d 7 3 7 , 7 4 0 ( T e x. App.—Texarkana

2006, no pet.). A judg ment, though, is void only when the c ourt rende ring judgm en t "h ad no jurisdiction of the parties or proper ty , no jurisdiction of the subject matter , no ju ri sd ict io n t o en ter th e part icu lar ju dgmen t, or n o cap aci ty to act ." Browning , 165 S.W .3d at 346. 5 as a de fense . The Attorne y Gene ral filed a notice of nonsuit on the same day Warner f iled his answer

. On Fe bruar

y 15, 2008, the Attorn ey Ge n er al fi l ed an other e nforc ement proc eeding (the "se cond enf

orce ment proce eding ") ag ainst Warner. The rec ord does not conta in an answe r filed by Warner to the se cond enf o rc em ent proceeding , but does contain a t least two motions for continuance s filed by

Warner' s attorney . The trial c ourt held a he aring J uly 31, 200 8 , at which Warner w as re pre s en t ed by counsel. Warne r filed a motion to di smiss t he sec ond enfor ceme nt
proce eding for lac k of jurisdiction on the same day as t he hearing

. I n the m otion to dismi ss, Warner claimed the tr ial court lac ked jurisdiction beca use the first bill of revie w vacated the orig inal order

. At the hea

ring , the trial cour

t took judicial notice of the orig inal order and admitted into evidenc e the pay rec ord submi t ted by

the Attorney

Gene ral. On July

31, 2008, the trial cour t signe d a judgme nt ag ainst Warner f or $42,818.99 in past due c hild support. Warner' s issues on appea l collatera lly attack the second bill of re view. Warne r complains

7 that the sec ond bill of review w as not verif ied and not broug ht as a sepa rate proce eding and that theThe Te x as Supreme Court has held strict compliance with the rule s for ser vice of citation 8 must affirmatively

appea r on the re cord. W

achovia Bank

of Delaware v. Gilliam , 215 S.W .3d 848, 850 (Tex. 2007) (re stricted appea l). The Attorney Gene ral arg ues Warner' s untimely motion for new trial constituted a gene ral appear ance . I n the alter native, the Attorne y

Gene ral a rg ues Warner

cannot challeng e the jurisdictional re citations in the judgme nt. The trial court found that "it has jurisdiction of the pa rties and the subje ct matter of this suit." The Attorney Gene ral a lso arg ues the filing of a b i l l o f re v i ew i n t h e sa m e c au s e n u m b er as t h e s u i tb ei n g ch al l en ged i s wa i v ab l e e rr o r c i t i n g Mede les v. Nunez , 923 S.W .2d 659, 661 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, writ denied) , overruled on o t h er g rounds , Barker CATV Const., Inc. v. Am pro, Inc. , 9 8 9 S

. W

. 2 d

7 8 9 , 7 9 2

- 3 ( T e x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). I t is not necessar y for us to dec ide these issues. The third bill of revie w i s also not verifie d. A petit ion for a bill of review is re quired to be 9 verifie d. Ga laz nik

v . G ala zn ik , 685 S.W .2d 379, 382 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1984, no writ). The failure to verify

a bill of revie w, thoug h, is not a jurisdictional error . Any pleading defe ct " either of form or of

substance" must be "pointed out by exception in writing" and broug ht to the attention of the trial cour

t or it is waived. T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 9 0 ; cf. Aquila Sw. Pipeline, Inc. v . Harmony E xp loration, Inc. , 4 8 S. W. 3 d 2 2 5 , 2 3 3 ( T e x. A p p . — Sa n A n to n io 2 0 0 1 , p e t. d e n ie d )

. Any err or conce rning verific ation was wa ived. The filing of an answe r normally waives any defe ct in the servic e of c itation. T EX
. R. C IV
. 10 P. 12 1; see Bak

er v. M onsanto Co. , 111 S.W .3d 158, 160 (Tex. 2003) (per curia m). 6 rec ord fa il s to d e mo n s tr a te th a t th e A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l p r o p e r ly s e r v e d c it a ti o n o n Wa

r n e r in the second bill of re view. 8 Warner, thoug h, has not challeng ed the third bill of review, which was g rante d in 2003 and 9 reinstated the orig inal order

. By re i n s t ating the orig inal order , the third bill of reviewvacates the first bill of reviewand re nders irr eleva nt any arg uments conce rning the sec ond bill o f review. Warner f iled an answ er to the third bill of re view. As noted above, the third bill of reviewwas not 10

a pp e a le d a nd ha s n ot b e e n v a c a te d. I t is no t ne c e ssa ry for us to a dd

re ss Wa rn e r' s c omp la int sTh is op ini on sh ou ld no t be int e rp re te d a s ho ldi ng no e rr or s are c on ta ine d in the re c or d. Th is 11 opinion addresse s only

the er rors the pa

rties have assig ned for

our re view. 7 b e c a u s e , e v e n if

th e s e c o n d

b il l o f r e v ie w w e r e in e f

f e c ti v e f o r a n y r e a s o n , th e th ir d

b il l o f revie w would still vacate the first bill of revie w and reinstate the orig inal order . There fore , the trial cour t had jurisdiction, based on the reinstate d orig inal order , to enter the judgme nt from which Warne r

a pp e a ls. F or

the re a so ns state d, we a ff ir m th e jud g me nt o f t

he tr ia l c ou rt

. 11

J o s h R

. M o r r i s s , III Chief J ustice Date Submitted: Fe bruar y 24, 2009 Date D ecide d: Marc h 5, 2009