Hawk v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 06 January 2022
• Docket Number: 02-21-00044-CV
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals
• Parties: Kari Nicole Quebe Hawk, Appellant v. Pamela Louise Wallace, Appellee

Kari Nicole Quebe Hawk, Appellant
v.
Pamela Louise Wallace, Appellee

No. 02-21-00044-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Second District, Fort Worth

January 6, 2022

On Appeal from the 30th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. DC30-CV2019-1005

Before Womack, Wallach, and Walker, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DANA WOMACK JUSTICE.

1

I. Introduction

This case involves the question of whether Appellant Kari Nicole Quebe Hawk has standing to challenge the annulment of the marriage between Appellee Pamela Louise Wallace and John Thomas King. At the trial court level, Wallace asserted that Hawk, a stranger to the marriage, lacks standing, and Wallace filed a plea to the jurisdiction seeking to dismiss Hawk's petition for bill of review challenging the annulment. The trial court granted Wallace's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed Hawk's petition. On appeal, Hawk raises three issues challenging the trial court's grant of the plea to the jurisdiction. Because we hold that Hawk lacks standing to challenge the annulment, we will affirm.

II. Background

As alleged in Hawk's petition for bill of review, Wallace and King were married in Harris County, Texas, in 1985. At some point later, Wallace began residing with Hawk's father, Charles Lloyd Quebe, Sr. in Galveston County, Texas. Quebe died intestate in 2018. Following Quebe's death, Hawk filed an application for issuance of letters of independent administration of Quebe's estate in a Galveston County probate court. Wallace later filed her own application for issuance of letters of independent administration of Quebe's estate in the Galveston County probate court. In Wallace's application, she maintained that she was Quebe's common-law wife at the time of his death.

2

While the Galveston County probate matter was pending, Wallace filed a petition for annulment of her marriage with King in the 30th District Court of Wichita County-the trial court from which this appeal was initiated. In her petition for annulment, Wallace stated that she sought an annulment "under the grounds set out in § 6.107 of the Texas Family Code." See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 6.107 (authorizing a court to grant an annulment if "the other party used fraud, duress, or force to induce the petitioner to enter into the marriage" and if "the petitioner has not voluntarily cohabited with the other party since learning of the fraud or since being released from the duress or force"). Following a hearing in which a record was waived and in which King waived issuance and service of citation and did not appear, the trial court entered an agreed decree of annulment declaring that the marriage between Wallace and King was "null and void."^[1] Wallace later introduced the agreed decree of annulment into the Galveston County probate proceeding, and the Galveston County probate court made a finding that Wallace and Quebe had a common-law marriage.^[2]

3

Hawk later filed a petition for bill of review in the Wichita County trial court, asking that the court vacate the agreed decree of annulment because she had not received notice of the annulment proceeding and because Wallace had allegedly obtained the annulment based on acts of fraud. Wallace answered and filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that Hawk lacks standing to challenge the annulment proceeding because she was a stranger to the Wallace-King marriage. In response, Hawk argued that she had standing to pursue the bill of review because she had an interest prejudiced by the annulment proceeding, namely that her inheritance from Quebe's estate had been reduced by the annulment.

The day before the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction, Wallace filed a trial brief in support of her plea. The trial brief contains analysis and citations to authority in support of her argument that Hawk lacks standing. The trial brief also contains the additional argument that Hawk cannot meet the requirements of a bill of review because she has no meritorious defense and because she was not entitled to be served with the petition for annulment. At the beginning of the hearing, counsel for both Hawk and Wallace announced that they were ready to proceed with the hearing. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court took the plea to the jurisdiction under advisement, and three days later, the trial court signed an order granting Wallace's plea and dismissing Hawk's petition for bill of review. This appeal followed.

4

III. Discussion

Hawk raises three issues on appeal. In her first issue, Hawk argues that the trial court erred by granting the plea to the jurisdiction because she has standing to bring her petition for bill of review. In her second issue, Hawk argues that we should not consider any new arguments and authorities contained in Wallace's trial brief because it was filed only one day before the hearing on the plea to the jurisdiction. In her third issue, Hawk argues that even if we were to consider the new arguments and authorities contained in Wallace's trial brief, the new arguments are not a proper challenge to Hawk's standing and that, in any event, Hawk does meet the requirements of a bill of review.

A. Standard of Review

A plea to the jurisdiction is a dilatory plea that seeks dismissal of a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Harris Cnty. v. Sykes, 136 S.W.3d 635, 638 (Tex. 2004). Standing is a component of subject-matter jurisdiction. Vernco Constr., Inc. v. Nelson, 460 S.W.3d 145, 149 (Tex. 2015). We review a trial court's ruling on a plea to the jurisdiction de novo. Suarez v. City of Tex. City, 465 S.W.3d 623, 632 (Tex. 2015). We likewise review questions of standing de novo. Farmers Tex. Cnty. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Beasley, 598 S.W.3d 237, 240 (Tex. 2020).

The party asserting standing bears the burden of proof on the issue. Howard v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n as Tr. of OWS REMIC Tr. 2013-1, No. 05-19-00315-CV, 2020 WL 3786215, at *3 (Tex. App.-Dallas July 7, 2020, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re L.D.F.,

5

445 S.W.3d 823, 828 (Tex. App.-El Paso 2014, no pet.). In assessing standing, we look primarily to the pleadings and consider relevant evidence of jurisdictional facts when necessary to resolve the jurisdictional issues raised. Bland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Blue, 34 S.W.3d 547, 555 (Tex. 2000); L.D.F., 445 S.W.3d at 828. We construe the pleadings in the petitioner's favor, looking to the language to ascertain the pleader's intent. L.D.F., 445 S.W.3d at 828; In re M.J.G., 248 S.W.3d 753, 757 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2008, no pet.). When, as here, the trial court does not make separate findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of standing, we imply the findings necessary to support the judgment and review the entire record to determine if the trial court's implied findings are supported by the evidence. L.D.F., 445 S.W.3d at 828; In re S.M.D., 329 S.W.3d 8, 13 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2010, pet. dism'd).

B. The Law Regarding Standing and Bills of Review

Standing deals with the issue of whether a litigant is the proper person to bring a lawsuit. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Pro. Pharmacy II, 508 S.W.3d 391, 408 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2014, no pet.); Webb v. Voga, 316 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Tex. App.- Dallas 2010, no pet.). The general test for standing requires that there be (1) a real controversy between the parties that (2) will be actually determined by the judicial declaration sought. Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Tex. 2005); In re Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 441 S.W.3d 847, 850 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2014, orig. proceeding). To establish standing, a party must have a personal stake in the

6

controversy. In re B.I.V., 923 S.W.2d 573, 574 (Tex. 1996); D.K.W. v. Source for PublicData.com, LP, 526 S.W.3d 619, 625 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2017, pet. denied).

A bill of review is an equitable proceeding to set aside a prior judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to a challenge by a motion for new trial. Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809, 812 (Tex. 2012). Ordinarily, a bill-of-review plaintiff must plead and prove (1) a meritorious defense to the underlying action; (2) that the plaintiff was prevented from making by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party; and (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his own. Id. To have standing to pursue a bill of review, a person generally must have been a party to the prior judgment or have had a then-existing right or interest that was prejudiced by the prior judgment. Frost Nat'l Bank v. Fernandez, 315 S.W.3d 494, 502 (Tex. 2010); Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. EMC Mortg. Corp., 94 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, no...