448 S.W.3d 485
Tex. App.2014Background
- Cantu seeks to set aside an August 4, 2008 judgment for $1.6 million in attorney’s fees in the Gonzalez wrongful death case.
- Guerra & Moore, RG&B, and others allegedly conspired to defraud Cantu of his fee and hindered his defenses.
- Trial court granted summary judgment against Cantu’s bill of review petition and dismissed it.
- On appeal, the only issue before the court concerns the bill of review and extrinsic fraud claims.
- The court holds the summary-judgment evidence raises genuine issues of material fact on all theories.
- The matter is reversed and remanded for trial consistent with the opinion’s conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extrinsic fraud supports a bill of review | Cantu alleges extrinsic fraud; perjury and bribery distorted trial. | Appellees contend only intrinsic fraud existed; extrinsic fraud not established. | Genuine issue of material fact on extrinsic fraud exists; summary judgment improper. |
| Whether Rizk/McIntyre bar prevents relitigation via bill of review | Cantu was prevented from presenting specific conspiracy/fraud defenses; not barred. | Bill of review not available after unsuccessful appeal; issues already litigated. | Rizk/McIntyre distinctions leave genuine issue; summary judgment on this theory improper. |
| Whether unclean hands bars equitable relief | Harms from alleged conspiracy and sanction order do not fully resolve issues; not unclean hands. | Cantu’s conduct shown by sanctions supports unclean hands defense. | Genuine issue of material fact on unclean hands; summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- King Ranch, Inc. v. Chapman, 118 S.W.3d 742 (Tex. 2003) (extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud; standard for bill of review)
- PNS Stores, Inc. v. Rivera, 379 S.W.3d 267 (Tex. 2012) (fraud distortions; need to prevent injustice balanced with finality)
- Tice v. City of Pasadena, 767 S.W.2d 700 (Tex. 1989) (extrinsic vs intrinsic fraud; factors balancing finality vs distortion)
- Browning v. Prostak, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005) (intrinsic vs extrinsic fraud; fraud must distort the process)
- Rizk v. Mayad, 603 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. 1980) (no bill of review after timely but unsuccessful appeal)
- Montgomery v. Kennedy, 669 S.W.2d 309 (Tex. 1984) (finality vs. fraud considerations in equitable relief)