Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In December 2022, the Texas Office of the Attorney General filed a paternity action against Keaire Alvin Webb to establish his relationship with a child. Webb was properly served with the petition on December 28, 2022. In February 2023, Webb attended a hearing at which the trial court ordered paternity testing and scheduled a final hearing for April 21, 2023. Critically, the February 2023 order notice—which contained the April hearing date—bore Webb’s signature under an “APPROVED” heading, and the order stated that the parties were “entering a general appearance in this cause by their signatures on this order.”
Webb did not appear at the April 21, 2023 hearing. The trial court entered a default judgment finding Webb was the child’s biological father, appointing the mother as sole managing conservator and Webb as possessory conservator, and ordering child support payments. Webb’s restricted appeal to the Amarillo Court of Appeals was affirmed in April 2024. In May 2025—nearly two years after the default—Webb filed an independent petition for bill of review in a new cause number, seeking to overturn the judgment.
At the August 2025 hearing on the bill of review, neither party presented evidence, though the trial court took judicial notice of its file containing the return of service and the February 2023 order. The trial court denied the petition and dismissed the bill of review proceeding. Webb appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the bill of review. The court applied the standard for equitable bill of review, which requires a petitioner to prove: (1) a meritorious claim or defense, (2) that the petitioner was prevented from making it by official mistake, fraud, accident, or wrongful act, and (3) that the judgment was “unmixed with any fault or negligence on the petitioner’s own part.” However, when a bill of review claims a due process violation for lack of notice, the petitioner need only prove the third element—lack of negligence.
The appellate court found this third element dispositive. Although Webb claimed any signature on the February 2023 order was “coerced, forged, or obtained without full disclosure,” he presented no evidence supporting this allegation. The trial court reasonably concluded that Webb received adequate notice of the April 21 hearing through the February 2023 order, which bore his approval signature and clearly stated the final hearing date. Webb failed to negate his own negligence in failing to appear at that hearing. Because Webb did not satisfy the bill of review requirements, the court did not address his other arguments, including claims regarding jurisdiction, due process violations, the validity of income withholding orders, or constitutional challenges.
Key Takeaways
- A bill of review petitioner has the burden to prove lack of negligence; signing a court order containing hearing notice supports a finding that the petitioner received adequate notice and cannot negate negligence.
- Even in default judgment situations and absent proper service of process, a party seeking equitable bill of review relief must affirmatively prove they were not at fault in failing to defend themselves at trial.
- Unsupported allegations that signatures were “forged” or “coerced” do not overcome evidence in the trial court’s file when no testimony or documentation is presented.
- Bill of review is a separate, independent suit filed in trial court (not on direct appeal), allowing parties to introduce evidence, but failure to present evidence can be fatal to the claim.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Texas’s bill of review doctrine, while providing a remedy for default judgments, places substantial burdens on petitioners who delay relief. Webb’s case illustrates that even in family law proceedings involving child support, a party’s own negligence—particularly when they sign an order setting a hearing date—bars equitable relief. The court’s reliance on Webb’s signed approval of the February 2023 order was significant: it demonstrated that notice of the critical April hearing existed in the record, shifting the burden to Webb to explain why he failed to appear despite approving a document containing that notice.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of thoroughly documenting notice and obtaining client signatures on court orders in family law cases. It also illustrates the risks of delayed bills of review; Webb waited nearly two years after the default order to seek relief, and the trial court could consider the adequacy of his evidence (or lack thereof) at the bill of review hearing. Finally, the decision demonstrates appellate deference to trial courts on bill of review denials, reviewing only for abuse of discretion.