i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 35 0- CV C ra i g S W I FT a nd

Sha ri Swi ft , Ap pe lla nts
v . STA RL ITE REC OV ER Y C EN TER , Appellee Fr om the 216th J udicial District Court, Ker r County , Texas Trial Court No. 07706A Honora ble Stephen B . Ables, Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Dec ember 3, 2008 AFF I RMED Craig Swift and Shari Swift appea l the trial court’s judgment de ny ing the ir bill of review
. The Swifts asser

t that the trial court e rre d beca use they established ea ch of the elements re quired for
re lie f. We a ff

ir m th e tr ia l c ourt ’s jud g me nt.04

- 08

- 00 35 0- CV

- 2- B ACKG ROUND The Swifts filed a pe tition alleging a neg lige nce c laim ag ainst Starlite Recover y Center on April 8, 2002. I n October of 2002, Starlite moved t o dismiss the claims ag ainst it asserting that the Swifts’ petition alleg ed a he alt h ca re l i ab ility claim but the Swifts failed to timely file an e x pert repor t as requir ed by

statute. I n November

of 2002, the t ri al co u rt d enied Starlite’s motion and g ra nte d th e Swi ft s a dd iti on a l ti me to f ile the e xpe rt

re po rt
. Although S t ar lite took three de positions i n May and August of 2003, the Swifts did not
e ng a g e in a

ny dis c ov e ry . In O c tob e r o f 2 00 6, the tr ia l c ourt se nt no tic e to t he Swi ft s’ a tto rn e y

of its intention to dis miss the case f o r wa n t o f prose cution pursuant to rule 165a of the Te x as Rules of Civil Procedur e. The trial court subseque ntly dismiss ed the c ase in Nove mber of 200 6 when the Swifts failed to appe ar at the dismiss al hear ing or respond to the notice. The trial court c lerk sent
no tic e of the or de r o f d ism iss a l in

a c c or da nc e wi th t he ru le s. On Aug ust 30, 2007, the Swifts filed a petition for bill of revie w. The Swifts a sserted that their attorne y

did not rece ive the notice of t he trial c ourt’s intention to dismi ss or the trial cour t’s order of dismissal. After a

bench tr ial , the trial cour t denied the bill of re view and ma de the following pertinent finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law: (1) the notice of the t rial cour

t’s int e nti on to d ism iss a nd

or de r o f dis mis sa l we re se nt to the Swi ft s’ a tto rn e y ’s a dd re ss at 27 09 He y nis South, New B raunf

els , T ex as wh i ch was the last known addr ess of the Swifts’ attorney ; (2) no chang e of a ddress wa s ever filed by the Swifts’ attorney indicating he moved f

rom the He y

nis street addre ss; and (3) the posta l service never returne d the notice or

order as undeliver able.04

- 08

- 00 35 0- CV

- 3- D I S CUS S I ON A bill of review

is an equitable p ro ceeding broug ht by a par ty seekingto set aside a pr ior judgme nt that is no longer subject to cha lleng e by

a motion for new

t ri al or a ppeal. Caldwell v. Barnes , 1 54 S.W. 3d 93 , 96 (T e x. 20 04 ). Th e fu nd a me nta l po lic y

that f ina lity mus t be a c c or de d to judgme nts makes the g rounds upon wh ich a bill of re view will be g rante d narr ow and r estricted. Nguyen v . Intertex

, Inc. , 93 S.W .3d 288, 293 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 2002, no pet.) ; Interaction, Inc ./State v. State/Interaction, Inc

. , 1 7 S. W.3 d 775 , 778 (T e x. Ap p. —A us tin 20 00 , p e t. denied) . We reviewthe denial of a bill of re view under an abuse of discre tion standard. Nguyen , 93 S.W. 3d

a t 29 3; In te ra c tio n, In c ./S tat e , 17 S.W .3d at 778. B ill of re vie w pla int if

fs mus t or din a ri ly ple a d a nd pr ov e : (1 ) a me ri tor iou s c la im o r d e fe ns e to the underlying c ause of action; (2) whi ch the pa rty was pre vented f

rom making by

the fra ud,
a c c ide nt o r w ro ng fu l a c t of the op po sin g pa

rt y or by of fi c ia l mistake ; and

(3 ) u nmi xed wi th a ny fa ult
or ne g lige nce on the ir own par t. Cal dwe ll , 154 S.W .3d at 96. Where se rvice is proper but notice is que stioned, the bill of review plaintiff must show the absenc e of f ault or neg lige nce on his or he r own par t in order to be e ntitled to relief. See H ernandez v . Koch Machine ry Co. , 16 S.W .3d 48, 58 (T e x. Ap p. —H ou sto n [1st Di st. ] 200 0, pe t. d e nie d) ; se e als o A bo u- Tra bi v . B est I nd us tri al U nif or m Supply, Inc

. , No. 14-02-01000- CV, 2003 WL 2225 2 8 76, at *4 (Te x . App.—Houston [14th Dis t.] Oct. 2, 2003, no pet.) (mem. op.). I n Ma the ws v . H

arris Me tho dis t, F

or t W or th , 83 4 S.W. 2d 58 2, 58 3 ( Te x. Ap p. —F or t Wor th 1992, writ denied) , the bill of review plaintiffs soug ht to have their c ase r einstated af t er it was dismiss ed for

want of pr osecution. The pla intiffs’ lawy er te stified that he did not rec eive notice of the dismissal unti l after

the ca se had been dismi ssed; howeve r, t he attorne y failed to notify

the cour t04

- 08

- 00 35 0- CV

- 4- of hi s addre ss chang e af

ter filing the orig inal lawsuit. Id . The F ort Worth court aff irmed the trial
c o u rt’ s d e n ia l o f th e b il l o f r e v ie w r e je c ti n g th e a r g u me n t th a t th e a b s e n c e o f n o ti c e p r io r to the dismiss al deprived the pl aintiffs of due process. Id
. The court distinguished case s in which servic e of proc ess was a

bsent, asser

ting “ it is m uch more easily understood how [a party who had no service of pr oc e ss] w a s d e pr ive d o f h is r ig ht t o d ue pr oc e ss a s o pp os e d to a pp e lla nts wh o f

ile d s uit themselves, invoked the jur isdiction of the court a nd then fa iled to give the cour t notice of whe re they could be r eac hed.” Id . at 58 4- 85 . T he c ourt c on c lud e d, “ it c a nn ot b e sa id t hat a pp e lla nts ’ attorney was without fault bec ause he knew he had a case pending y et failed to g ive the district cour t notice of his new

addre ss.” Id . at 585. A par ty to a lawsuit is char ged wi t h n o t i ce that the suit may be dismissed for wa

nt of prosec ution whe n there is ina ction for a long pe riod of time. Hernande z , 16 S.W.3 d at 59. I n th is
c a se , f our y e a rs ha d e la

ps e d s inc e the law su it wa s f ile d, a nd thr e e y e a rs ha d e la

ps e d s inc e the la st action in the lawsuit which c onsisted of three depositions noticed and take n by Starlite. Moreove r,
e vid e nc e wa s p re se nte d tha t the no tic e of int e nt to dism iss a nd the dis mis sa l or de r w e re bo th p ro pe rl y sent to the last addre ss on file. Althoug h the Swifts se ek to r ely on testimony that the cler

k’s offic e
was ve rbally

notified of their attorney ’s chang e of a ddress, the tria l court did not abuse its discre tion in d e te rm ini ngthat th e a tto rn e y wa s a t fa ult or ne g lig e nt by fa ili ng to no tif y the c le rk of the a dd

re ss chang e in writing
. See W

ithrow v. Schou , 13 S.W .3d 37, 40 (Tex. App.—Houston [14t h Dist.] 1999, pet. denied) (noting due process arg ument absent where attorney fails t o notify the cler k in writing of a ne w a dd re ss) . B e c a

us e the e vid e nc e e sta

bli sh e s th a t th e no tic e s w e re pr op e rl y se nt t o th e la st addr es s o n fi l e for the Swifts’ attorney and those notice s were not returne d, the trial cour t did not04

- 08

- 00 35 0- CV

- 5- abuse its discre tion in deny ing the bill of r eview based on the Swifts’ failure to e stablish that they
wer e without fault or ne g lige nce on the ir own par t. The trial cour

t’s judgme nt is therefor e af firmed.
Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice