Loretta Branch v. Archie Branch ( 2014 )

Opinion issued June 26, 2014.
In The
Court of Appeals
For The
First District of Texas
————————————
NO. 01-12-01159-CV
———————————
LORETTA BRANCH, Appellant
V.
ARCHIE BRANCH, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1
Brazoria County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 62037
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Loretta Branch appeals from a trial court’s order dismissing her bill of
review attacking a final divorce decree between her and Archie Branch. She
challenges the trial court’s subject–matter jurisdiction to decide her bill of review.
We conclude that the trial court lacked subject–matter jurisdiction, because
Loretta’s bill of review attacked the judgment of a different trial court. We
therefore reverse the trial court’s order and direct the trial court to transfer the case
to the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas.
Background
In February 2011, Loretta sued Archie for divorce as a pro se litigant in the
300th District Court of Brazoria County. In May 2011, after Archie failed to
answer or appear at a hearing, the trial court entered a default judgment against
him and issued a final divorce decree. Loretta alleges that the trial court judge
improperly checked a box in the divorce decree that awarded Archie the proceeds
of a life insurance policy. Loretta alleges that she never requested the trial court
judge to award the policy to Archie; rather, she intended that she be awarded the
policy. The following month, Archie died.
In September 2012, Loretta petitioned for a bill of review as a pro se litigant
in the 300th District Court. The 300th District Court transferred the case to the
County Court at Law Number One of Brazoria County. In November 2012, the
2
County Court at Law Number One held a hearing and dismissed Loretta’s bill of
review. 1
Discussion
Loretta contends that (1) the county court lacked subject–matter jurisdiction
to decide her bill of review; (2) the district court erred in transferring the case to
the county court without proper notice to Loretta; and (3) the district court, in the
original suit, erred in modifying the final divorce decree without proper notice to
Loretta.
Standard of review
We review whether a trial court has subject–matter jurisdiction as a question
of law subject to de novo review. City of Elsa v. Gonzalez, 325 S.W.3d 622, 625
(Tex. 2010) (per curiam).
Analysis
A bill of review is an equitable proceeding brought by a party seeking to set
aside a prior judgment that is no longer subject to challenge by a motion for new
trial or appeal. Frost Nat’l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 504 (Tex.
2010); Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) (per curiam). A bill–
1
We note that the life insurance carrier filed an interpleader action to resolve
competing claims to the life insurance proceeds. Branch v. Monumental Life
Ins. Co., 422 S.W.3d 919, 920 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, no
pet.). There, our sister court of appeals held that Loretta has no right to the
insurance proceeds because of the divorce decree. Id. at 924.
3
of–review plaintiff must plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the
underlying cause of action, (2) which the plaintiff was unable to present by the
fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposite party or official mistake,
(3) unmixed with any negligence of his own. Caldwell, 154 S.W.3d at 96 (citing
Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406–07 (Tex. 1979)). Because a bill of
review is a direct attack on a judgment, it must be brought in the court that
rendered the original judgment, and only that court has jurisdiction over the bill.
Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d at 504 (citing Richards v. Comm’n for Lawyer Discipline,
81 S.W.3d 506, 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.)); Martin v.
Stein, 649 S.W.2d 342, 346 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1983, writ ref’d n.r.e.) (per
curiam) (“A bill of review . . . is not a means of appeal of a judgment of one trial
court to another trial court.”).
Here, Loretta brought a bill of review in the 300th District Court, attacking a
final divorce decree of that court. But the 300th District Court transferred the case
to the County Court at Law Number One. The county court then dismissed
Loretta’s bill of review. Because Loretta’s bill of review attacked a judgment of
the 300th District Court, only the 300th District Court had jurisdiction over her bill
of review. See Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d at 504. Accordingly, we hold that the
4
County Court at Law Number One lacked subject–matter jurisdiction over
Loretta’s bill of review. 2
Conclusion
Because the trial court lacked subject–matter jurisdiction, we reverse the
trial court’s order and direct the trial court to transfer the case to the 300th District
Court of Brazoria County, Texas.
Jane Bland
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.
2
Because the county court lacked subject–matter jurisdiction, we need not
address Loretta’s other issues.
5