Law v. Law

• Decision Date: 10 May 1990
• Docket Number: No. 01-89-00282-CV,01-89-00282-CV
• Citation: 792 S.W.2d 150
• Parties: Eleanor Janice LAW, Appellant, v. Robert Andrew LAW, Appellee. (1st Dist.)
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 150

792 S.W.2d 150

Eleanor Janice LAW, Appellant, v. Robert Andrew LAW, Appellee.

No. 01-89-00282-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas,

Houston (1st Dist.).

May 10, 1990.

Rehearing Denied June 7, 1990.

Eleanor Janice Law, Houston, pro se.

Joe M. Pirtle, Houston, for appellee.

Before SAM BASS, DUNN and O'CONNOR, JJ.

OPINION

O'CONNOR, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment. We affirm.

The parties, Eleanor Janice Law and Robert Andrew Law, married in 1964 and divorced in 1982. During the 18 years of their marriage, Mr. Law worked at the Johnson Manned Space Craft Center (NASA). Ms. Law, a lawyer, and Mr. Law represented themselves in their divorce. The Laws agreed on the division of assets and drafted their own agreement. Relying on the agreement dividing the assets, the court granted the divorce.

The agreement provided that Ms. Law would keep the house and give Mr. Law a note for $30,000 for his share of the house, and that they would each keep their own retirement funds. The agreement also provided that as long as they did not remarry, they would name each other as the sole beneficiary of their wills, insurance, and any retirement benefits. Mr. Law remarried; Ms. Law did not.

Six years after the divorce was final, Ms. Law filed a suit to contest Mr. Law's receipt of his retirement benefits. In that suit, filed with the same cause number and in the same court that granted the divorce, Ms. Law claimed a one-half interest in a $39,706.64 lump sum payment made to Mr. Law as part of his NASA retirement after his divorce. Ms. Law asked the court to apply her share of Mr. Law's retirement payment to cancel her $30,000 note to Mr. Law. Ms. Law filed an amended petition and a petition for bill of review under the same cause number.

In response, Mr. Law filed an answer, and later, a motion for summary judgment. In the motion for summary judgment, he alleged: (1) there were no grounds for Ms. Law's bill of review; (2) res judicata barred reopening the case; and (3) the trial court did not have the authority to modify the property division.

Ms. Law filed a response to the motion for summary judgment, complaining in 20 numbered paragraphs about the motion for summary judgment, the property division, Mr. Law's remarriage, the inequity of the reduced value of the marital home, and Mr. Law's receipt of his retirement benefits.

Ms. Law attached an affidavit to the response which stated that all the allegations in her response were true. The affidavit itself did not state any facts. Because sworn pleadings do not constitute summary judgment evidence, Hidalgo v. Surety Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 462 S.W.2d 540, 544-45 (Tex.1971), Ms. Law's response did not present any fact issues to the trial court or preserve any for our review.

The trial court granted Mr. Law's motion for summary judgment, stating no reason in the judgment for its decision. When a summary judgment does not state the reason for which it was granted, the appellant must show that none of the grounds in the motion for summary judgment is sufficient to support the judgment. Tilotta v. Goodall, 752 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1988, writ denied).

I. Mr. Law's retirement benefits.

In her first point of error, Ms. Law contends the trial court should not have granted the summary judgment because her pleadings raise the question whether the divorce decree disposed of Mr. Law's retirement benefits.

Before we can decide this issue, we must first determine what kind of suit Ms. Law filed. If her suit was to partition assets overlooked in the divorce settlement, then the suit was not subject to a plea of res judicata. In such a case, she could bring a suit to divide assets that were not disposed of by the divorce decree.

If, however, Ms. Law's suit was to claim a share of an asset already divided by the divorce settlement, the suit was subject to a plea of res judicata. Thus, the only way Ms. Law could avoid the defense of res judicata was to claim fraud and file a bill of review.

We cannot determine, by looking at the titles to Ms. Law's pleadings, which type of suit she filed. Under the misnomer of pleadings rule, we can look at the substance of the pleading to determine what it is. TEX.R.CIV.P. 71; see also State Bar of Texas v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829, 833 (Tex.1980).

Ms. Law initiated this suit by a pleading called a "Motion for Modification or Petition for Partition." In 14 numbered paragraphs, Ms. Law said she had only recently learned that Mr. Law was going to receive approximately $28,000 as a lump sum payment as part of his retirement at NASA; most of his NASA retirement accumulated during their marriage; she owes Mr. Law $30,000 on a note for the marital home; and the house is no longer worth the amount of the note. Ms. Law asked the court to apply her share of Mr. Law's retirement to cancel the note.

Ms. Law filed a second pleading she named "First Amended Motion for Modification or Amended Petition for Partition." In that pleading, Ms. Law added seven allegations to the suit, numbered 15 through 21. Although most of the paragraphs corrected dates and other information in her first pleading, Ms. Law also presented claims for interest and attorney's fees. Although titled an amended motion, we assume Ms. Law meant the pleading as a supplement to her first pleading.

Ms. Law's last pleading, "Request for Bill of Review," two paragraphs in length and unsworn, simply said:

Comes now the Petitioner, Eleanor Janice Law, proceeding pro se, and seeks to invoke this court's equitable powers with regard to the above case.

In support thereof, Petitioner incorporates by reference all pleadings filed by Petitioner on and since June 29, 1988.

The pleadings Ms. Law attempted to incorporate in her bill of review were the motion for modification or petition for partition, and first amended motion for modification or amended petition for partition.

A. Suit to partition undivided assets.

If we assume Ms. Law's suit was a suit to partition undivided assets, was the summary judgment proper? Yes. The property agreement disposed of all Mr. Law's retirement benefits at NASA. At the time of the divorce, Ms. Law knew Mr. Law had retirement benefits at NASA. Schedule 2 of the property agreement provided that Mr. Law was to have "any and all sums, whether matured or unmatured, accrued or unaccrued, vested or otherwise" related to all of his retirement plans.

Ms. Law's only complaint about the retirement benefits seems to be that she did not know Mr. Law would be able to get part of his retirement in a lump sum payment. She does not claim to have been unaware of his NASA retirement benefits. Only if the community property was not divided by the property agreement, could Ms. Law ask the court to partition it. Harrell v. Harrell, 692 S.W.2d 876 (Tex.1985). Because Mr. Law's retirement benefits were community assets that were divided by the divorce, Ms. Law could not file a suit to re-litigate her interest in his benefits. ¹

B. Petition for bill of review.

If we assume Ms. Law's suit was a bill of review, was the summary judgment proper? Yes. Ms. Law's pleadings did not meet the requirements of a bill of review.

We begin this review by acknowledging that the courts do not look on bills of review with favor. See Crouch v. McGaw, 134 Tex. 633, 638, 138 S.W.2d 94, 96 (1940); 4 R. McDonald, Texas Civil Practice in District and County Courts § 18.27.1 (rev.1984). A bill of review is a separate suit in equity, brought to set aside a judgment in the same court in an earlier suit, when the judgment in the earlier suit is final, is not reviewable by appeal or by writ of error, and does not appear to be void on the face of the record. State v. 1985 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 778 S.W.2d 463 (1989).

1. The allegations.

Because a bill of review is an equitable proceeding designed to prevent manifest injustice, the courts require a party who challenges a final judgment to allege and prove:

a. a meritorious defense to the earlier cause of action;

b. which the party was prevented from making by fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposite party; and

c. which is unmixed with any fault or negligence of the party.

Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406-407 (Tex.1979); Forney v. Forney, 672 S.W.2d 490, 497 (Tex.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1983, writ dism'd w.o.j.). The petition for bill of review must state facts sufficient to show the court that petitioner is entitled to a bill of review. Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408.

We find that Ms. Law did not state a meritorious defense to the divorce judgment; Ms. Law did not claim she was prevented from making the defense by fraud, accident, or wrongful act of Mr. Law; and Ms. Law's participation in drafting the settlement with her husband did not leave her without fault or negligence. On her allegations, therefore, Ms. Law was not entitled to challenge the divorce decree by bill of review.

2. Time limits.

A petition for bill of review must be filed within the residual four-year statute of limitations. TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE ANN. § 16.051 (Vernon 1986); see also Williams v. Adams, 696 S.W.2d 156, 160 (Tex.App.--Houston [14th Dist.] 1985, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The only exception to the four-year limitation is for petitioner to show extrinsic fraud. Williams, 696 S.W.2d at 160.

The divorce decree was signed on June 14, 1982. In civil cases, the date the court signs a judgment begins the time for filing the documents in connection with an appeal. TEX.R.APP.P. 5(b). The divorce decree was not subject to challenge by bill of review after June 14, 1986.

Ms. Law filed her request for bill of review on June 29, 1989, seven years after the decree was entered, and three years after the last date she could have challenged it by bill of review. Because Ms. Law filed the bill of review outside the four year-statute of limitations, the only way she could extend the time was to allege extrinsic fraud.

Extrinsic fraud is fraud...