Joe Henderson v. Marilyn Kay Blalock, 13-16-00175-CV

In 2010 Henderson sued Blalock for adverse possession of Rosharon property; the case was dismissed for want of prosecution and his motion to reinstate was denied and affirmed on direct appeal.
In 2014 Henderson refiled the lawsuit and separately filed a bill of review seeking reinstatement of the original suit.
Both parties proceeded pro se; Henderson’s filings before the summary-judgment mailing listed a Houston address, while the Rosharon property had been sold and was not Henderson’s residence.
Blalock filed two motions for summary judgment (one targeting the refiled suit and one the bill of review) and certified service by certified mail to the Rosharon address.
The certified-mailed motions were returned to Blalock as undelivered; Henderson did not file responses.
The trial court granted both motions; Henderson appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the bill of review and reversed/remanded the dismissal of the refiled suit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Henderson received proper notice of Blalock's motion for summary judgment on the refiled lawsuit	Henderson: never received the motion; mailed to wrong address	Blalock: certified she mailed the motion to the Rosharon address; certificate raises presumption of service	Reversed and remanded — Henderson rebutted the presumption because the certified mail was returned undelivered and record showed his residence was the Houston address
Whether Henderson's bill of review to reinstate the original suit was procedurally available	Henderson: sought reinstatement, alleging improper avoidance of service and court error	Blalock: the issues were or could have been raised on direct appeal after the motion to reinstate was denied	Affirmed — bill of review unavailable because Henderson had timely sought reinstatement and pursued an unsuccessful direct appeal, and the matters were or could have been raised then

Rozsa v. Jenkinson, 754 S.W.2d 507 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1988) (proper notice of summary-judgment hearing is prerequisite to summary judgment)
Gulf Refining Co. v. A.F.G. Mgmt., 605 S.W.2d 346 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston 1980) (summary-judgment rights depend on compliance with rules of civil procedure)
Tobin v. Garcia, 316 S.W.2d 396 (Tex. 1958) (movant must comply with service requirements to obtain summary judgment)
Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. 2005) (certificate of service raises presumption of receipt)
Limestone Constr., Inc. v. Summit Commercial Indus. Props., Inc., 143 S.W.3d 538 (Tex. App.—Austin 2004) (presumption of receipt vanishes if nonmovant introduces evidence of nonreceipt)
Rizk v. Mayad, 603 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. 1980) (bill of review not available where movant made a timely motion to reinstate and pursued an unsuccessful appeal)
Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 (Tex. 2001) (finality for appeal requires disposition of all parties and claims)