In the Matter of the Marriage of Ham

• Decision Date: 04 October 2001
• Docket Number: No. 06-00-00082-CV,06-00-00082-CV
• Citation: In the Matter of the Marriage of Ham, 59 S.W.3d 326 (Tex. App. 2001)
• Parties: (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001) IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF HOWARD STRAWN HAM AND THERESA KATHLEEN HAM AND IN THE INTEREST OF DAVID PAUL HAM, A CHILD
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 326

59 S.W.3d 326 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2001)

IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF HOWARD STRAWN HAM AND THERESA KATHLEEN HAM AND IN THE INTEREST OF DAVID PAUL HAM, A CHILD

No. 06-00-00082-CV

Court of Appeals of Texas, Texarkana

Submitted September 20, 2001

Decided October 4, 2001

On Appeal from the 71st Judicial District Court Harrison County, Texas Trial Court No. 99-0423

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Edwin E. Buckner Jr., Law Offices of Edwin E. Buckner, Jr., for appellant.

Vernard G. Solomon, Marshall, for appellant.

Before Cornelius, C.J., Grant and Ross, JJ.

OPINION

Opinion by Justice Grant

Theresa K. Saxon, formerly Theresa K. Ham, appeals the trial court's summary judgment of her Bill of Review seeking to set aside the divorce decree dissolving her marriage to Howard S. Ham. Saxon contends that the trial court erred in granting Ham's Motion for Summary Judgment and in finding that the pleadings lacked one of the essential elements and proof necessary to present a proper Bill of Review. Saxon also raises the issue of whether the lack of either service of process or waiver in the underlying divorce proceeding deprived Saxon of due process and fair notice of the divorce proceeding, thus constituting fundamental error. Because the order dispensing with the Bill of Review did not address whether Saxon's signature on the agreed judgment constituted an appearance and because the answer depends on factual determinations, this court will not review this final point of error.

A divorce decree was issued without Saxon being served or signing a waiver of service of process. Saxon did discuss and sign a divorce decree, drafted by Ham's attorney, that awarded a disproportionate share of the community property to Ham. Saxon sought a Bill of Review alleging lack of service or waiver, inducement by Ham's fraudulent and wrongful acts to sign the divorce decree entered by the court, and facts explaining how Ham prevented Saxon from asserting her rights in the divorce proceedings, mentioning in detail Saxon's psychiatric history. The petition also alleged no adequate remedy available despite Saxon's due diligence, again citing her psychiatric condition, and requested relief in the form of setting aside the divorce decree and ordering a new and just divorce decree.

Ham was granted summary judgment at a hearing on the Bill of Review. Ham's Motion to Dismiss was made for the first time, orally, at that hearing. There was no Motion for Summary Judgment or Motion to Dismiss filed. No evidence was introduced at the hearing, although Saxon was prepared to offer her own testimony as well as that of a psychiatrist to support her Bill of Review. The only evidence other than the pleadings contained in the record are three affidavits: one from Saxon, one from a woman who knew of Saxon's emotional distress, and the third from a secretary in the office that handled the divorce decree (describing the events surrounding the preparation of the agreed divorce decree).

The judgment itself states that it is a summary judgment, but there was no Motion for Summary Judgment presented orally or filed, and therefore no supporting affidavits attached to provide summary judgment evidence. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a. There was no hearing scheduled to consider the summary judgment, see Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a, but instead the judgment was rendered at a hearing on the Bill of Review. In addition, the ground on which the judgment was rendered, pleading defects, are not proper for summary judgment. In re B.I.V., 870 S.W.2d 12, 13-14 (Tex. 1994); Saenz v. S. Union Gas Co., 916 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Tex. App. El Paso 1996, writ denied).

Even if the judgment granting the motion to dismiss was a judgment dismissing the Bill of Review for defective pleadings, mistakenly named a summary judgment, there was no motion to dismiss filed. A motion to dismiss is also not the appropriate method to raise defects in the pleadings, as such defects should be raised by special exception. A judgment dismissing the action is not the proper remedy for defective pleadings unless the party with the defective pleadings is given the opportunity to amend and either stands by the original pleadings or submits defective amended pleadings. Farias v. Besteiro, 453 S.W.2d 314, 317 (Tex. Civ. App. Corpus Christi 1970, writ ref'd n.r.e.).

It does not appear that the judgment could have been a judgment on the Bill of Review itself, because not only were the grounds on which it was based inappropriate, but the hearing was inadequate to grant or deny the Bill of Review. The irregular proceedings make it difficult for this court to determine what exactly it is reviewing, let alone what standard of review to apply.

On appeal from an improperly granted summary judgment due to a pleading defect, the court will deem the stricken pleading reinstated, and if it sufficiently states a claim, the summary judgment will be reversed. If not, and if an amendment would not make the pleading sufficient, the procedural irregularity in granting the summary judgment instead of dismissing it will be disregarded as harmless error. See 3 Roy W. McDonald & Elaine A. Grafton Carlson, Texas Civil Practice § 29:14 (2d ed. 2000). The court in Chandler v. Gillis affirmed summary judgment, finding that the error in not providing the right to amend was harmless because an amendment could not remedy the petition's failure to state a cause of action because the pleading affirmatively negated its own cause of action. Chandler v. Gillis, 589 S.W.2d 552, 554 (Tex. Civ. App. El Paso 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.). In that case, defendant filed a motion to dismiss or summary judgment and plaintiff specifically asserted a right to amend if the pleadings were defective, but the court granted the summary judgment without giving leave to amend. Id. at 553. The court in Kale v. Palmer also affirmed summary judgment because the petition did not state a permissible cause of action in Texas. Kale v. Palmer, 791 S.W.2d 628 (Tex. App. Beaumont 1990, writ denied). In that case, special exceptions were filed and responded to, and both parties filed for summary judgment. Id. at 630-31. This case differs from the Chandler and Kale cases because the parties in those cases followed proper procedure regarding improper pleadings; here, they did not.

Except under the general contention that the court erred in granting summary judgment, Saxon does not raise defects in the Bill of Review procedure in her appeal. Although an appellant waives error by not raising it, the Texas Supreme Court held in Malooly Bros., Inc. v. Napier, 461 S.W.2d 119 (Tex. 1970), that such a broad point of error is sufficient to preserve complaint on appeal for all grounds on which a summary judgment may be based. Id. at 121.

The procedural defects in this case were so egregious as to render the judgment reversible error. For reasons of judicial economy, we subject the record to the standard of review stated above regarding an improperly granted summary judgment due to pleading defect. The pleadings sufficiently state a claim in their original form, and if there had been any lack of specificity, it could be made sufficient by amendment; therefore, the procedural irregularity in granting the summary judgment was not harmless error, and the case should be remanded for proper proceedings.

Saxon contends the court erred in finding a required element lacking in her Petition for Bill of Review. Because the judgment stated only that the pleading lacked a necessary element and did not specify which element, we will review all the essential elements.

A bill of review is an equitable proceeding to set aside a final judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to a motion for new trial. Transworld Fin. Serv. Corp. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. 1987). To be entitled to relief, a plaintiff in a bill of review action is ordinarily required to prove three elements: (1) a meritorious claim or defense; (2) which he was prevented from asserting by the fraud, accident, wrongful act, or mistake of the opposite party or a mistake by court personnel in the execution of official duties; and (3) unmixed with any fault or negligence of his...