Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2021, Discover Bank filed a breach of contract suit against Jared Motyl regarding credit card debt in Hunt County district court. Motyl appeared in the action and moved for arbitration, but the motion was not granted. In 2023, the trial court granted summary judgment against Motyl. Four years later, in 2025, Motyl filed a pro se petition for a bill of review seeking to set aside the 2023 judgment, alleging that he did not receive sufficient notice of the summary judgment hearing.
At the hearing on the bill of review petition, Motyl argued that Discover’s certificates of service lacked tracking numbers, proof of delivery, and certified mail confirmation. He contended that because the certificates did not show certified mail service, he never actually received notice. Discover urged that notice had been properly mailed, and asked the trial court to take judicial notice of its file from the original suit. The trial court denied Motyl’s petition without expressly granting Discover’s request for judicial notice.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas 6th Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding that Motyl failed to meet his burden of proving he lacked notice. Under Texas law, a party seeking a bill of review based on lack of notice must prove (1) that there was no notice of the trial setting or dispositive hearing, and (2) that the lack of notice was not due to the party’s own negligence. The court emphasized that lack of notice—if properly proven—excuses the traditional bill of review requirements, including showing a meritorious defense.
However, Motyl presented only unsworn argument at the hearing. He neither verified his claim by affidavit nor testified under oath about not receiving notice. The certificate of service in the record showed that Discover mailed notice to an address consistent with the address on Motyl’s own 2020 credit card statements and his 2025 petition. The court rejected Motyl’s argument that the certificates were defective for lacking certified mail tracking, noting that Texas Rules of Civil Procedure have not required certified mail since 2014—regular mail service is permissible.
Key Takeaways
- A party seeking relief via bill of review must prove lack of service with sworn evidence (affidavit or testimony), not unsworn oral argument alone.
- A certificate of service showing proper mailing constitutes prima facie evidence of service and shifts the burden to the recipient to prove non-receipt.
- Certified mail is no longer required for service in Texas; service by regular mail is sufficient and valid.
- Courts narrowly construe bills of review due to Texas’s public policy favoring finality of judgments.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that parties challenging final judgments on service-of-process grounds must meet a strict evidentiary standard. Unsworn assertions or argument—no matter how sincere—cannot overcome a certificate of service showing proper mailing to a known address. This protects the finality of judgments and prevents parties from relitigating closed cases based on speculative claims of non-receipt.
The ruling also clarifies that Motyl’s technical objections about the form of service (absence of certified mail or tracking numbers) lacked force under current Texas procedural rules. The decision thus balances the courts’ discretion to consider bills of review in cases involving genuine due process violations against the need to prevent collateral attacks on settled judgments based on unsubstantiated claims.