On December 15, 2017, the trial court issued a final interlocutory no-answer default judgment in favor of Antonio Gomez against A.D. Sparlin. Sparlin filed a verified petition for a bill of review on December 26, 2018, which the trial court later denied. Sparlin contended that this denial was erroneous. However, the appellate court found that the verification of Sparlin's petition was deficient, leading to no abuse of discretion by the trial court in its denial. Thus, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment without addressing the merits of Sparlin’s arguments.
A bill of review is an equitable remedy to contest a judgment that is no longer appealable, requiring strict compliance with procedural rules. The courts are hesitant to grant such requests due to the importance of finality in judgments and will scrutinize bills of review closely. The review of a denial of a bill of review is for abuse of discretion, which is established if the trial court acts arbitrarily or unreasonably. Additionally, a verified petition is essential; failure to provide this verification renders the petition unsubstantiated and justifies denial.
The no-answer default judgment against Sparlin became final on December 15, 2017. Subsequently, Gomez abstracted the judgment and requested execution using an incorrect zip code that matched a previously incorrect zip code in a certificate of last known mailing address. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 239a, a plaintiff claiming a due process violation due to lack of notice must demonstrate that their own negligence did not contribute to the lack of notice. On April 5, 2018, a constable noted that Sparlin did not reside at the specified address, yet Gomez requested reissuance of the writ using the same incorrect zip code.
Seven months post-judgment, Sparlin served Gomez with a petition for a bill of review, which contained discrepancies concerning its filing dates and service. Although the petition was electronically filed, it had not been accepted. During the hearing, the trial court highlighted the incorrect zip code issue, noting that no mail had been returned and confirming the court’s record only showed the incorrect zip code of 76140 instead of Sparlin's actual zip code, 76110.
On August 2, 2018, Gomez and Sparlin entered a Rule 11 agreement to cancel the upcoming writ-of-execution sale and defer further enforcement actions until after November 6, 2018. Sparlin filed his bill-of-review petition on December 26, 2018, seeking to set aside the default judgment and to enjoin a scheduled sheriff’s sale. Despite the filing date, the verification page indicated that Sparlin signed the petition on August 1, 2018. Gomez responded on August 28, 2019, during the bill-of-review hearing, contesting the verification due to inconsistencies in dates and the prior Rule 11 agreement. Gomez argued that the discrepancies undermined the validity of Sparlin's claims, particularly concerning the sheriff's sale set for January 2019. Sparlin contended he had attempted to file the petition in August but it was returned unfiled, leading to the Rule 11 agreement to postpone the sale.
Sparlin's December bill-of-review petition alleged a scheduled sale in January 2019; Gomez contested this, stating he had not requested such a sale. Sparlin defended by asserting he affirmed the facts in his petition to the best of his knowledge and believed a short sale was set based on information from a constable, without amending his petition. The trial court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, denied Sparlin’s petition, citing insufficient pleadings. The court noted that both the unfiled August 2018 and filed December 2018 petitions contained identical verifications, which created a demonstrable falsity, undermining the credibility of the December petition. Sparlin's attempt to reference the earlier verification, while the circumstances had changed, led to inconsistencies regarding the urgency of his claims. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition as it was unverified and lacked sworn evidence. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed.
