Charlotte L. Parkhurst v. the Office of the Attorney General of Texas and the Comptroller of Public Accounts for the State of Texas
2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12430
Tex. App.2015Background
- Parkhurst filed a bill of review on Oct. 7, 2014 seeking to set aside a final summary judgment entered July 1, 2010 that awarded sales-tax recovery to the State of Texas and City of Edgewood.
- The nominal judgment creditors (State and City) were not named as defendants in the bill of review; Parkhurst sued the Texas Attorney General and Comptroller.
- The Attorney General and Comptroller moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a, arguing the petition was baseless for several reasons, including limitations.
- The trial court granted the Rule 91a motion and dismissed Parkhurst’s petition, without specifying which ground it relied on.
- On appeal, Parkhurst failed to challenge all possible grounds raised in the Rule 91a motion—most notably she did not dispute the limitations defense asserting the bill of review was filed more than four years after the July 1, 2010 judgment.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that because Parkhurst did not negate every ground on which the trial court could have relied, the dismissal must be upheld on the unchallenged limitations ground.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bill of review was legally sufficient under Rule 91a | Parkhurst sought relief from the 2010 judgment (argued basis for setting it aside) | Defendants argued the petition was baseless under Rule 91a for multiple reasons, including that it was time-barred | Affirmed dismissal; appellate court upheld on unchallenged limitations ground |
| Whether the bill of review was barred by limitations | Not addressed on appeal | Bill of review must be brought within four years of rendition; Parkhurst filed after that period | Court accepted defendants’ limitations argument as a valid, unchallenged ground and affirmed |
| Whether the trial court’s failure to specify a ground requires reversal | Parkhurst did not negate all possible grounds on appeal | When a trial court grants dismissal on multiple possible grounds, appellant must negate each ground | Court applied standard from summary-judgment practice and required appellant to negate all possible grounds; Parkhurst failed to do so |
| Whether absence of the judgment creditors as parties undermines the bill of review | Parkhurst proceeded without naming State/City as judgment creditors | Defendants did not press this argument below | Court noted the concern but declined to decide because defendants did not raise it on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (a bill of review must be brought within four years of the rendition of the judgment)
- Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2014, pet. denied) (Rule 91a dismissal reviewed de novo)
- Willis v. Willoughby, 202 S.W.3d 450 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2006, pet. denied) (appellant must negate all summary-judgment grounds when trial court does not specify)
- Sonat Exploration Co. v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 271 S.W.3d 228 (Tex. 2008) (appellate court will not reverse on grounds not raised by appellant)
- Flores v. Arrieta, 790 S.W.2d 75 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1990, no pet.) (appellant bears burden to show trial court erred)