Dixey Evans, Formerly Dixey May Jones v. David Nelson Jones
10-15-00278-CV
Tex. App.Nov 16, 2016Background
- Dixey Evans and David Jones married twice (first marriage ended with a New Mexico divorce in 1988; they remarried in Texas in 1989).
- On November 21, 1989, David filed for annulment in Hamilton County, Texas; Dixey had signed a waiver of citation in August 1989.
- The 1989 Decree of Annulment stated no community property was accumulated during the marriage and ordered each party to take as their sole and separate property whatever was presently in their possession.
- Jones Drilling was acquired during the parties’ first marriage; the New Mexico decree did not divide that community property, and later New Mexico proceedings addressed asset ownership.
- In 2015 (after their sons’ deaths), Dixey filed a bill of review seeking to set aside the 1989 annulment decree, alleging she only later learned David claimed sole ownership of Jones Drilling.
- The trial court granted David’s traditional motion for summary judgment on statute-of-limitations grounds; the Tenth Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Evans) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction based on waiver of citation | Waiver signed before petition meant court lacked jurisdiction over her | Even so, bill of review requires proving a meritorious defense regardless of waiver argument | Court rejected relief—Evans still had to prove meritorious defense and did not do so |
| Meritorious defense to annulment decree | Decree awarded community property to Jones (Jones Drilling); she lacked knowledge of decree wording | Evans failed to establish a meritorious defense to the annulment judgment | Court held she did not meet burden to show a meritorious defense |
| Equitable grounds (fraud/accident/wrongful act; discovery timing) | Claimed she only discovered Jones’s claim of sole ownership after sons’ deaths and thus was prevented from asserting rights | Jones argued statute of limitations and lack of meritorious defense bar relief | Court held bill of review barred by limitations and Evans did not show the required prevention by fraud/accident/wrongdoing |
| Statute of limitations as affirmative defense | Sought equitable relief despite delay (over 22 years since decree) | Argued bill of review was time-barred and summary judgment appropriate | Court granted summary judgment for Jones; limitations barred Evans’s bill of review |
Key Cases Cited
- Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Grant, 73 S.W.3d 211 (Tex. 2002) (summary-judgment standard)
- Cathey v. Booth, 900 S.W.2d 339 (Tex. 1995) (defendant may prevail by establishing affirmative defense conclusively)
- Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535 (Tex. 1998) (elements required to obtain relief by bill of review)
- Northcutt v. Jarrett, 585 S.W.2d 874 (Tex. Civ. App.--Amarillo 1979) (party still must show meritorious defense in bill of review)
- Luna v. Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services, 432 S.W.3d 356 (Tex. App.--Waco 2014) (discussing elements for bill of review and limitations)