Anita Saint and Jonathan Saint v. Samuel B. Bledsoe and Dale Rose, Administrator of the Estate of Blake M. Bledsoe
416 S.W.3d 98
Tex. App.2013Background
- Anita and Jonathan Saint sued for personal injuries; their case was dismissed for want of prosecution after no motion to retain was filed following a notice setting a dismissal hearing.
- Saint’s counsel, Rodney Elkins, changed offices twice; the district clerk’s file contained Elkins’ second address (700 N. Pearl St., suite omitted) but not his later Hillcrest Rd. address.
- The clerk mailed the notice of intent to dismiss to the address on file (suite number omitted); Elkins did not receive the notice and no motion to retain was filed, so the case was dismissed on August 4, 2010.
- Saint filed a bill of review alleging lack of notice (a due-process violation) and that the dismissal resulted from official mistake; a jury found official mistake but also found negligence by Saint and her counsel.
- Trial court dismissed Saint’s bill of review with prejudice; Saint appealed, arguing denial of due process and that she was relieved from proving lack of negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Saint) | Defendant's Argument (Bledsoe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to receive notice of dismissal deprived Saint of due process | Lack of notice of the dismissal hearing and order meant Saint was never served and thus entitled to bill-of-review relief | Because Saint and counsel had an obligation to keep the court apprised of a current address, failure to receive mailed notice was at least partly their fault and not a due-process violation | No due-process violation established where claimant’s counsel failed to update address; jury could find plaintiff fault |
| Whether proof of official mistake relieves Saint of proving lack of negligence | Official mistake finding means only Craddock standard (no intentional or conscious indifference) applies rather than traditional lack-of-neglect bill-of-review element | Official mistake does not eliminate plaintiff’s burden to prove lack of negligence when plaintiff had initially invoked court’s jurisdiction | Held plaintiff still must show lack of negligence; official mistake did not relieve that burden |
| Sufficiency of evidence for jury finding of negligence | Saint argues evidence does not support jury’s negligence finding | Bledsoe points to missing written address update, clerk’s procedures, and that Rule 21a places duty on counsel to notify court of address changes | Jury finding of negligence supported by probative evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Preservation / charge error | Saint contends jury charge improperly assigned negligence to nonparty (attorney) and misstated diligence standard | Bledsoe notes issues were not briefed on appeal | Charge-error complaints waived for inadequate briefing; not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Mabon Ltd. v. Afri-Carib Enters., Inc., 369 S.W.3d 809 (Tex. 2012) (nonreceipt of notice to client through counsel may relieve client of proving diligence where lack of notice was not the client’s fault)
- Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93 (Tex. 2004) (bill of review elements and relief when party claims nonservice)
- Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (U.S. 1988) (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties; lack of notice can invalidate proceedings)
- Carroll v. Petro-Chemical Transp., Inc., 514 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. 1974) (clerk’s failure to mail notice of judgment can support a bill of review, but plaintiff must show failure to pursue relief was not due to plaintiff’s or counsel’s negligence)
- Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 133 S.W.2d 124 (Tex. 1939) (standards for granting new trial after default: not intentional or due to conscious indifference, meritorious defense, no injury to the opponent)
- Campus Investments, Inc. v. Cullever, 144 S.W.3d 464 (Tex. 2004) (lack of proper address/update can constitute plaintiff negligence barring bill-of-review relief)