## Facts

- Charlotte Williamson and Ralph Williamson divorced after extended litigation concerning division of the community estate.
- During the divorce proceedings, Ralph presented information about the community property and its financial condition.
- Charlotte was represented by an attorney and retained two accountants to assist her during the property-division process.
- Charlotte had the opportunity to review financial information concerning the community estate while the divorce case was pending.
- Before entry of the final decree, the parties signed a property-settlement agreement, which the trial court incorporated into the final divorce decree.
- After the decree became final and the deadlines passed for filing a motion for new trial and for taking a direct appeal, Charlotte filed an equitable bill of review seeking to set aside the property division.
- Charlotte alleged the settlement agreement should be set aside because Ralph forced her to sign it by threatening that, if she did not sign, he would see that all property would be awarded to her, knowing she could not manage the responsibilities.
- Charlotte also claimed Ralph misrepresented the “health” (financial condition) of the community estate when the agreement was negotiated.
- Ralph moved for summary judgment, arguing Charlotte could not obtain bill-of-review relief because she failed to use available legal remedies (a motion for new trial or a direct appeal) and her allegations did not satisfy the elements required for a bill of review.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Ralph; Charlotte appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Charlotte could maintain a bill of review to set aside the property division when she did not pursue a motion for new trial or a direct appeal after learning of the alleged threats and misrepresentations.
2. Whether the alleged coercion and alleged misstatements about the community estate constituted extrinsic fraud (or other wrongful conduct) that prevented Charlotte from fully presenting her case and excused her failure to pursue ordinary post-judgment remedies.
3. Whether Charlotte raised a fact issue on the required bill-of-review elements, including a meritorious claim or defense and the absence of fault or negligence on her part.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the summary judgment denying Charlotte’s bill of review.
- The court held Charlotte failed, as a matter of law, to meet bill-of-review requirements because she did not exercise diligence in pursuing available legal remedies (new trial and appeal) while they were still available.
- The court concluded Charlotte’s allegations did not show the type of extrinsic fraud that would excuse her failure to seek timely relief, given that she was represented by counsel, employed two accountants, and had the opportunity to examine the financial information during the divorce proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A bill of review is an equitable, post-judgment action that attacks a final judgment no longer subject to a motion for new trial or direct appeal.
- To obtain relief by bill of review, the petitioner generally must prove: (1) a meritorious claim or defense, (2) that she was prevented from asserting by the opposing party’s fraud, accident, or wrongful act (or by official mistake), and (3) that the failure to assert the claim or defense was not due to the petitioner’s own fault or negligence.
- A petitioner must ordinarily show diligence by using available legal remedies, including a motion for new trial and a direct appeal, when those remedies are available; a bill of review is not a substitute for those procedures.
- Extrinsic fraud concerns conduct that denies a party a fair chance to participate in the case or to present her position; disputes about the truth, completeness, or weight of evidence relating to matters tried (or that could have been tried) are typically treated as intrinsic fraud and do not support bill-of-review relief.
- When a party is represented by counsel and has the means and opportunity to evaluate the information relevant to a settlement incorporated into a judgment, later complaints that the agreement resulted from misstatements or pressure will not, without more, excuse the failure to timely seek a new trial or appeal.

## Conclusion

The court left the divorce decree intact because Charlotte, despite legal and accounting assistance and the opportunity to assess the community estate during the divorce, waited until ordinary appellate remedies expired to challenge the settlement; her allegations did not establish extrinsic fraud that prevented her from pursuing a motion for new trial or appeal, so summary judgment against her bill of review was proper.


Williamson v. Williamson, 986 S.W.2d 379 (1999)