Regina Nachael Howell Foster v. Carlos Foster and Areya Holder, 02-20-00327-CV

Regina Foster filed for divorce in 2012 and separately filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy days earlier; the state divorce was later dismissed for want of prosecution.
Regina later filed a bill of review in state court challenging the divorce dismissal and asserting the bankruptcy trustee (Areya Holder, “Trustee”) wrongfully claimed community property.
Trustee intervened in the divorce and later moved to dismiss Regina’s bill of review under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a; Trustee attached extensive bankruptcy- and state-court documents to the motion.
At the Rule 91a hearing, the trial court announced dismissal; months later it signed an order granting Trustee’s Rule 91a motion and dismissing the entire case, including claims against Carlos Foster (who had only filed a general denial).
Regina moved to recuse the trial judge; the regional presiding judge denied recusal. Regina appealed, challenging (1) the Rule 91a dismissal as to Trustee, (2) the sua sponte dismissal of claims against Carlos, (3) denial of recusal, and (4) the denial of sanctions relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Trustee’s Rule 91a motion was properly granted	Foster: claims are not barred; she pleaded ultra vires conduct by Trustee	Trustee: claims baseless and barred by absolute (and qualified) immunity; dismissal appropriate under Rule 91a	Affirmed as to Trustee — Rule 91a dismissal upheld because pleadings did not plausibly allege ultra vires conduct
Whether trial court properly dismissed Foster’s claims against Carlos sua sponte	Foster: sua sponte dismissal improper because Carlos filed only a general denial and did not move for dismissal; judgment must conform to pleadings	Carlos: orally asked court to dismiss if court had authority; sought denial of default judgment	Reversed as to Carlos — sua sponte dismissal was improper and claims against Carlos remanded
Whether the trial judge should have been recused	Foster: judge biased and denied due process; rulings show lack of impartiality	Judge/Regional Presiding Judge: recusal cannot be based solely on judicial rulings; errors are remedy by appeal	Affirmed — recusal denied; judge’s rulings alone insufficient to show disqualifying bias
Whether appellate sanctions were warranted for a frivolous appeal	Trustee: appeal frivolous; seeks damages under Tex. R. App. P. 45	Foster: appeal had at least one viable point (sua sponte dismissal)	Denied — sanctions denied because at least one issue on appeal had reasonable grounds

City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (Rule 91a review compared to plea to the jurisdiction)
Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C., 595 S.W.3d 651 (Tex. 2020) (affirmative defenses including immunity may support Rule 91a dismissal)
Baron v. Sherman (In re Ondova Ltd. Co.), 914 F.3d 990 (5th Cir. 2019) (bankruptcy trustees entitled to absolute and qualified immunity for actions pursuant to court orders)
Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126 (U.S. 1881) (ultra vires exception — officers acting beyond authority may be sued personally)
Ward v. Lamar Univ., 484 S.W.3d 440 (Tex. App. — Houston 2016) (trial court lacks authority to dismiss claims sua sponte on merits without procedural basis)
Cunningham v. Parkdale Bank, 660 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. 1983) (judgment must conform to the pleadings)
Lane-Valente Indus., Inc. v. J.P. Morgan Chase, N.A., 468 S.W.3d 200 (Tex. App. — Houston 2015) (standard for appellate sanctions under Tex. R. App. P. 45)