1 ... S eeT EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2 - 0 7 - 2 4 7 - CV
R E B E CC A L YN N MAHADY AP P E L L ANT V . JO SEPH D A N I EL M A H A D Y A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- FR O M THE 233RD DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- Thi s i s a n a ppe al f r om t he t r i al co urt ’ s no- evi den ce s um m ar y j udgm ent den yi ng a ppe l l antRebe cc a Lyn n M aha dy r el i efi n he rbi l l ofr evi ew pr oce edi ng at t em pt i ng t o s etas i de t he t r i al co urt ’ s f i nal de cr ee ofdi v o rc e b e t w ee n t he par t i es. Rebecca b r i ngs t w o i ssues chal l engi ng t he pr opr i et y oft he no- evi dence
su m m ar y j udgm ent . W e r eve r se an d r em and .2 ... The t r i al cou rt had al r ea dy gr ant ed a n ew t r i al as t o t he pr ovi si ons of

t he decr ee af f ect i ng R ebecca’ s and Joseph’ s t hr ee m i norchi l dr en and sever ed th o s e p ro c e e d i n g s fro m th e d i v o rc e a n d p ro p e rtyd i v i s i o n . 2 B a c k g rou n d F a c ts Rebec ca an d a ppe l l ee Jos eph D ani el M aha dy w er e m ar r i ed and ha d f i ve
c h i l dren . I n 2 0 0 5 , R eb ec ca l eft T ex as f or C al i f orni a; w hi l e sh e w a s in C a l i fo rnia, J o se p h i n sti tu ted d i v o rce p roc e e d i n g s i n T e x a s. A fter sp e a k i n g w i th Jos eph , t he pr oce sss er verat t em pt ed t o s er ve Rebec ca i n pe r so n and by
a lt e r n a t iv e s e r v ic e a tt h e p a rt ie s ’ r e s id e n c e in K e lle r ; h o w e v e r , h e w a s u n a b le t o d o s o b e c a u s e R e b e c c a w a s in C a lif o r n i a . R e b e c c a w a s f in a llys e r v e d in Cal i f or ni a o n Augu s t 24, 2005, m a k i ng h e ra ns w e rd a t e Se pt e m be r19, 2005
a t 1 0 :0 0 a .m . S eeT EX . R. C IV . P . 9 9 (b ). A l t hough Rebe cc a c ont end s t hat sh e se ntan an sw erby U PS and t hatt he
answ erw as del i ver ed at9: 28 a. m . on S ept em ber 19 , 20 05 , Joseph ob t ai ned a def a u l tdecr ee ofdi vor ce t hatsam e day. A not e on t he decr ee show s t hat t he pr ove- up occu rre d a t 1 0: 06 a. m . Rebecca ti m el y f i l ed a m ot i on f ornew t r i al , butt he t r i al cou rt den i ed i t bec aus e sh e f ai l ed t o app ea r at t he m ot i on f or
n e w tri a l h e a ri n g . O n Ja nua r y 12, 200 6, Rebec ca f i l ed a p et i t i on f orbi l l ofr evi ew s ee ki ng t o set asi de t he pr oper t y di vi si on i n t he decr ee. O n M ay 2, 20 07 , Joseph fi l ed 23

a m ot i on f orno- evi den ce su m m ar y j udgm entan d a t r adi t i ona l m ot i on f or
s um m a r y j ud gm e nt . Re be c c a r e s po nd e d t o bo t h m ot i on s . On J un e 25, 2007 , Jos eph w i t hdr ew hi s m ot i on f or t r adi t i ona l su m m ar y j udgm ent but nothi s noevi dence m ot i on. That sam e day, t he t r i al cour tgr ant ed Joseph ’ s no- evi dence
m o t io n f o rs u m m a r y ju d g m e n t a n d o r d e r e d t h a tR e b e c c a t a k e n o t h in g o n h e rb ill
o f re v i e w p e ti ti o n . R e b e c c a fi l e d th i s a p p e a l . S t andar d ofRev i ew A f t eran ad equ at e t i m e f ordi sc ove r y, t he part y w i t houtt he bur den of pr oofm ay, w i t houtpr es ent i ng e vi den ce , m ove f ors um m ar y j udgm ent on t he gr o u n d t h a t t h e r e i s n o e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o rt a n e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t o f t he
n o n m o v a n t’s c l a i m o r d e fe n s e . T EX . R. C IV . P. 16 6a( i ) . The m ot i on m ust
s p e c i fi c a l l y s ta te th e e l e m e n ts fo r w h i c h th e re i s n o e v i d e n c e . Id. ; John so n v. Brewer & Pr

itcha rd , P.C ., 7 3 S .W .3 d 1 9 3 , 2 0 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). T h e tri a l c o u rt
m us t gr ant t he m ot i on unl es s t he nonm ova nt pr oduc es su m m ary j u d g m ent
e v i d e n c e th a t ra i s e s a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a te ri a l fa c t. S eeT EX . R. C IV . P . 1 6 6 a (i) & c m t.; S w. E

le c . Po wer Co . v. Gra n t, 7 3 S .W .3 d 2 1 1 , 2 1 5 (T e x . 2 0 0 2 ). W h e n re v i e w i n g a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t, w e e x a m i n e th e e n ti re
r e c o r d in t h e lig h t m o s tf a v o r a b le t o t h e n o n m o v a n t , in d u lg in g e v e r yre a s o n a b le i n fe re n c e a n d re s o l v i n g a n yd o u b ts a g a i n s t th e m o ti o n . Sudan v. Sudan, 199 S. W . 3d 291, 292 ( Tex. 200 6) . I f t he nonm ova nt br i ngs f or w ar d m or e t han a4

sci nt i l l a of pr obati ve evi dence t hat r ai ses a genu i ne i ssue ofm at er i al f act , t hen
a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t i s n o t p ro p e r. Moore v. K MartCor p. , 981 S .W .2 d 2 6 6 , 2 6 9 (T e x . A p p .— S a n A n to n i o 1 9 9 8 , p e t. d e n i e d ). A ppl i cabl e Law A b ill o f r e v ie w is a n e q u it a b le p r o c e e d in g t o s e ta s id e a ju d g m e n tt h a tis notvoi d on t he f ac e o ft he r ec or d buti s no l onge rap pea l abl e o r s u b j e c t t o a
m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l . K i n g Ra n c h , I

nc. v. Chapm an , 118 S. W . 3d 742, 751 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ); Ba k er v. G o ldsm ith , 5 8 2 S .W .2 d 4 0 4 , 4 0 6 (T e x . 1 9 7 9 ); Ha rtfo rd Un der wr

iter sIn s . v. Mills , 110 S. W . 3d 588, 590 ( Te x. App . — Fo rtW ort h 2003,
n o p e t.). T ra d i ti o n a l l y , a b i l l o f re v i e w re q u i re s p ro o f o f th re e e l e m e n ts : (1 ) a
m er i t or i ous def ense t o t he und er l yi ng cause of act i on, ( 2) t hat w as notassert ed du e t o f r a ud , a c c i de nt , w r o n gf ul a c to fa n op po ne nt , o ro f f i c i a l m i s t a k e , ( 3)
u n m i x e d w i th a n yfa u l t o r n e g l i g e n c e b yth e m o v a n t. Ross v. Nat ’ l C tr. f or the Employm entof

the D i sabled, 1 9 7 S .W .3 d 7 9 5 , 7 9 7 (T e x . 2 0 0 6 ); K i ng Ranch , 11 8 S . W . 3d at75 1– 52 . A bi l l ofr evi ew i s pr operw hen a par t y has exer ci sed due di li g e n c e t o pr osecut e al l adequate l egal r em edi es agai nsta f or m er j u d g m e n t. K

i ng Ranch , 1 1 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 1 ; Baker, 5 8 2 S .W .2 d a t4 0 8 . T h is due di l i ge n c e r equ i r em enti s di st i nctf r om t he t hr ee el em ent s oft he bi l l of3 ... J o s e p h a lle g e d t h a tR e b e c c a f a i l e d t o e x e r c is e d u e d ilig e n c e in

exh aus t i ng a l l l ega l r em edi es ag ai ns tt he dec r ee onl y i n hi s t r adi t i ona l m ot i on f or su m m ar y j udgm ent, w h i c h he w i t hdr ew . Ther ef or e, w e w i l l notad dr es s t he due di l i gence pr er equi si t e i n det er m i ni ng w het her t he t r i al cour t ’ s no- evi dence s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t w a s p ro p e r. 5 r evi ew and i s a pr er equi si t e t o br i ngi ng a bi l l ofr evi ew . C a ld w e ll v. Bar nes , 3 9 7 5 S .W .2 d 5 3 5 , 5 3 7

– 3 8 (T e x . 1 9 9 8 ); D a vi s v. Sm ith , 227 S. W . 3d 299, 302 (T e x . A p p .— H o u s t o n [1 s tD is t .] 2 0 0 7 , n o p e t .) . T h e g r o u n d s u p o n w h ic h a b ill ofr evi ew ca n be obt ai ned ar e nar r ow bec aus e t he pr oce dur e c onf l i ct s w i t h t he fu n d a m e n ta l p o l i c yth a t j u d g m e n t s m u s t b e c o m e fi n a l a t s o m e p o i n t. Ki ng Ranch , 1 1 8 S .W .3 d a t 7 5 1 ; A lexa n der v. Hag e do rn , 148 Te x. 56 5 , 2 26 S .W .2 d 9 9 6 , 9 9 8 (1 9 5 0 ). A n a ly s is Bo t h ofReb ecca’ s i ssues chal l enge t he pr opr i et y oft he no- evi dence
s u m m a ryj u d g m e n t o n a n yo f th e g ro u n d s a s s e rte d b yJ o s e p h i n h i s m o ti o n . Joseph m oved fora no- evi dence sum m ar y j udg m enton t he f ol l ow i ng gr oun ds:
a . M er i t or i ous D ef ense -Pet i t i oner[ R ebecca] cannot show t hat [ she] di d not have [ t he] oppo rt uni t y t o pr esenta def ense, r at her Pet i t i oner had [ t he] opp or t uni t y t o pr esent a def ense but chose i nst ead t o i gno r e t he T exas pr oceedi ngs. b . Just i f i cat i on f or Fai l ur e t o A ssertD ef ense - Pet i t i one rca nnot sh o w h ow [ s he ] f a i l e d t o m a k e a d e f e ns e b y f r a ud , a c c i den t, w r ong f ul actofRespo nden t[ Joseph] , orof f i ci al m i st ake.6

c . N o Faul t orN egl i gence - P e t it io n e rc a n n o ts h o w t h e d e f a u lt j udg m ent w as not r ender ed as a r esul t of [ her ] f aul t ornegl i gence, r a t h e rt h e Ca l i f o r n i a f o r u m t h e P e t i t i o n e rc h o o s e [ s i c ] s t a t e d t hat [s h e ] h a s c a u s e d m a n y p r o b le m s f o r h e r s e lfb yn o tp a rt ic ip a t in g in th e T e x a s l i ti g a ti o n . I n r esponse, Reb ecca pr odu ced herow n af f i davi t , i n w hi ch she sw or e t hat she f i l ed h e ra n s we ro n S e p t e mb e r1 9 , 2 0 0 5 a n d t h a ts h e r e l i e d o n t h e f act t hatU PS sa i d i tde l i ver ed t he ans w er on t i m e i n t hi nki ng t hatJos eph co ul d not obt ai n a de f aul tj udgm entag ai ns the r . She al so at t ac hed a p ri nt outf r om
u p s . c o m s h o wi n g t h a tU P S h a d d e l i v e r e d a p a c k a g e t o F o rtWo rt h a t9 : 2 8 a . m. on Sep t em ber19, 2005 t hatw as s i gne d f orby “Se l l er s” i n th e m ai l r oom . Fi nal l y, Rebe cc a a t t ac hed a cop y of a pag e e nt i t l ed “M i nut e Or der s” f r om t he Sup e ri o rCour tofM ar i n Count y, Cal i f or ni a, i n w hi ch t he j udge de t ai l ed a
c o n v e rs a ti o n o n S e p te m b e r 5 , 2 0 0 6 w i th th e p re s i d i n g j u d g e o f th e 2 3 3 rd D i st r i ctC our tofTar r antC oun t y. A l t hou gh t he or der s s ta te , “I tappear s t hat [ R e b e c c a ] ha s ca us ed m anypr obl em s f orhe r se l fby notpa rt i ci pat i ng i n t he Tex as l i t i gat i on and t hat[ Joseph] has t aken f ul l advantage of [ her ] st at us as a
se l f

- r epr es ent ed orde f aul ti n g l i t i gan t , ” t he dat e o ft hes e o r der s i s af t ert he
m o ti o n fo r n e w tri a l h e a ri n g a t w h i c h R e b e c c a fa i l e d to a p p e a r. T h e o rd e rs appeart o be m or e r el at ed t o t he cust ody p r oceed in gs i nvol vi ng t he chi l dr en
r at hert han t he di vor ce an d pr ope rt y di vi si on; i n a ddi t i on, t heydo n otm ent i on
w het herRebe cc a f i l ed a n a n s w e ri n t he di vor ce pr oce edi ngs . Fu rt her , t he4 ... A car ef ul r eadi ng of hi s no- evi dence m ot i on sho w s th a t he nev er

assert ed as a gr oun d t hat R ebecca f ai l ed t o al l ege f act s show i ng t hatshe had a m er i t or i ous def ense t o t he pr oper t y di vi si on. N evert hel ess, w e not e t hateven t hough t he di vor ce w as gr ant ed on t he no- f aul tgr ound ofi ns upport abi l i t y, t he decr ee aw ar ds Reb ecca, w ho had been m ar r i ed t o Joseph f or atl eastt en year s, onl y he rcl ot hi ng, j ew el r y, and per so nal ef f ec t s t hen cu r r ent l y i n he rpos se ss i on; i tal s o a w a rd s Joseph’ s at t or ney $ 10 , 00 0 i n at t or ney’ s f ees f ort r i al even th o u g h i t re c i te s th a t J o s e p h i n c u rre d o n l y$ 4 ,5 0 0 i n a tto rn e y ’s fe e s . T h u s , a m er i t or i ous def ense t o atl eastpartoft he decr ee i s appar entf r om i t s f ace. 7 o r d e r s n o t e t h a tt h e C a lif o r n ia t r ia l ju d g e re f u s e d t o re g is t e rt h e d e c r e e in C a lif o r n ia b e c a u s e R e b e c c a “ d id n o th a v e n o t ic e o fa ll t h e p r o c e e d in g s in Tex as. ” Joseph’ s no- evi dence m ot i on i s based sol el y on hi s content i o n t hat R ebecca i s notent i t l ed t o set asi de t he def aul t di vor ce decr ee because ofher
ow n f ai l ur e t o par t i ci pat e i n t he T exas pr oceedi ngs. How eve r , al t hough t he 4 evi den c e show s t hatReb ecca f ai l ed t o appearatt he m ot i on f ornew t r i al hea r i ng a f t ert he def aul tde cr ee ha d a l r ea dy b ee n e nt er ed, s he di d pr es ent evi den ce i n r es pons e t o Jo se ph’ s no- evi den ce m ot i on s how i ng t hat bef or e t he de c r e e w a s e nt e r e d, s he s e nth e ra ns w e rv i a U P S a n d th a ti ta r r i ve d a t9: 28
a .m . o n S e p t e m b e r1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , s h o rt ly b e f o r e t h e 1 0 :0 0 a .m . d e a d lin e a n d o n ly a f ew m i nut es be f or e t he 10: 06 a. m . de f aul the ar i ng. Fu rt her m o re , a t t he
m ot i on f ornew t r i al hear i ng, Joseph’ s coun sel adm i t t ed t hatReb ecca had f i l ed
a n a n s w e r o n S e p te m b e r 1 9 .8

I n si m i l a r ci rcu m sta n c e s, the su p rem e co u rth a s h e l d tha t “th e n e c e ss i ty
o f p l e a d i n g a n d p ro v i n g a c c i d e n t, fra u d [,] o r w ro n g fu l a c t” i s o b v i a te d . Baker, 582 S. W . 2d at 407 . I n t hat ca se , t he def end ant s had s enta l et t erde nyi ng t he
a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e s u i td i r e c t l yt o t h e t r i a l j u d g e , b u tt h e l e t t e rwa s mi s p l aced t h r o u g h n o f a u lto ft h e d e f e n d a n t s a f t e rith a d b e e n re c e iv e d in t h e T r a v is C o u n tyc o u rth o u s e m a i l ro o m . Id . at405- 07. The t r i al cou rt den i ed t he bi l l of
r evi ew , butt he cou rtofap pea l s r eve r se d and t he su pr em e c ourtaf f i r m ed t he
c o u rt o f a p p e a l s . Id . a t406. H e re, t h e r e is a t l e a st so m e ev i d e n c e tha t R e b e c c a atte m p ted to par t i ci pat e i n t he T exas pr oceedi ngs by f i l i ng a t i m el y answ erand t hatshe w as p r e v e n t e d f r o m d o in g s o t h r o u g h n o f a u lto fh e ro w n . A c c o r d in g ly , w e h o ld th a t R e b e c c a b rou g h t f o rw a rd m o re th a n a s c i n ti l l a o f e v id e n c e su ffi c i e n t t o
r ai se a genui ne i ssue ofm at er i al f actas t o t he t hr ee el em ent s of a bi l l ofr evi ew pr oceedi ng. W e sust ai n herf i r sti ssue.9 C onc l us i on H avi ng s us t ai ned R e bec ca ’ s f i r sti ss ue as di sp os i t i ve and ha vi ng d e te rm i n e d th a t th e tri a l c o u rt e rre d b yg ra n ti n g a n o -e v i d e n c e s u m m a ry j udg m entt hatReb ecca t ake not hi ng on her bi l l ofr evi ew pet i t i on, w e r ever se t h e t r ia l c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n ta n d re m a n d t h is c a s e f o rt r ia l.

T E R R I E L I VI NGS T ON J U S T I C E PA N EL A : LI V I N G STO N , D A U PH I N O T, an d W A LKER, JJ. DEL I VERE D: J un e 26, 2008