State: TEXAS
I was recently the defendant in a Bill of Review that was granted, and now my divorce has been undone. I've retained an appeals attorney to challenge the Bill of Review.
For various reasons, my situation isn't critical and I'm in a very good strategic position. I don't need too much strategy advice at the moment.
I AM trying to understand the case-law as it pertains to my case because I need to be smart about how I manage my attorneys.
I've been as involved in my case as I can possibly be, and I've survived five years worth of ongoing litigation without putting my attorney's kids through college. So far, I've only paid for half of my attorney's new corvette.
I could obviously seek out and retain a new top-notch attorney, and spend countless thousands of dollars to achieve my goals, but I'm already in an exceptionally good position. I'm just looking for the shortest path to the exit so I can put a legitimate end to all of these legal entanglements.
The more I study case-law, and the more I talk to judges and attorneys, the more I'm convinced that nobody understands the nuts and bolts of the law in general or the Bill of Review in particular. I need some advice to help me point my attorney in the right direction.
Let's start with this puzzle:
I'm convinced that the Bill of Review was granted contrary to the precedents established by previous case-law.
I tried to manage my lawyer in a way to demonstrate to the judge how to rule correctly. My attorney had no interested in being schooled by me and the judge had no interest in being schooled by my attorney. I'm interest in justice being served -- but I might be the only one involved who cares. In any case, that didn't happen and the Bill of Review was granted contrary to previous case-law.
My appeals attorney wanted to appeal -- sounds logical, no?
Well, appeals courts have previously ruled that a Bill of Review granted serves to re-open the underlying case. This is supposed to be followed by the court ruling on the matters raised by Bill of Review followed by a new judgement -- a new divorce decree in my case.
Previous appeals courts have ruled that a Bill of Review granted re-opens the underlying case and therefore is interlocutory and not subject to appeal. (More specifically, interlocutory appeals are restricted to a short list of very specific things that don't apply to my case.) So I can't appeal the Bill of Review until AFTER a new ruling is issued.
Another avenue to attack the validity of the Bill of Review is a Writ of Mandamus. Mandamus relief asks the appeals court to compel a government employee to perform his or her job in a manner consistent with law. This can be used to force a judge to comply with the law when the judge's actions aren't correct or proper.
Understandably, previous appeals court decisions have ruled that Mandamus relief is available only when no other remedy exists. Unfortunately for me, previous appeals courts have also ruled that they consider appeal to be an adequate remedy.
At first it was disheartening to realize that I couldn't seek Mandamus relief and an appeal had to wait until after a new judgement. But then I realized that any temporary order of the court (as is common in a divorce case) would trigger my ability to seek Mandamus relief because those can't be remedied by appeal.
Presently, the orders of the court simply grant the Bill of Review and the court docket shows the case as closed. More than 30 days have passed and nobody has filed any post-judgement motions.
Previous appeals court opinions show that a Bill of Review granted should be followed by a re-trial of the underlying case under the new (unique) case number of the Bill of Review. A new judgement should be issued under the new case number that disposes of all matters of the parties and voids the previous judgement issued under the previous case number -- none of this seems to be happening and nobody seems to understand that it is supposed to be happening.
In my case, there's no benefit to paying thousands of dollars for a re-trail and there's nothing useful about the new orders that'll result. At BEST it'll be as good as the results I've already got.
As of this moment, my appeals attorney has nothing he can appeal. If I let him, he'll do STUFF that'll cost MONEY and accomplish little or nothing. I asked him to stand-by until something actionable occurs.
Can anyone explain to me what is supposed to be happening and how to make it happen?
"Let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind. But I'd prefer to understand the path out of this legal state of limbo so I can put this all behind me and get back to living life like normal people do.
While I appreciate the timeless wisdom of "find a good attorney", I need to know how to spot one when I see one. I need to be well informed.
I was recently the defendant in a Bill of Review that was granted, and now my divorce has been undone. I've retained an appeals attorney to challenge the Bill of Review.
For various reasons, my situation isn't critical and I'm in a very good strategic position. I don't need too much strategy advice at the moment.
I AM trying to understand the case-law as it pertains to my case because I need to be smart about how I manage my attorneys.
I've been as involved in my case as I can possibly be, and I've survived five years worth of ongoing litigation without putting my attorney's kids through college. So far, I've only paid for half of my attorney's new corvette.
I could obviously seek out and retain a new top-notch attorney, and spend countless thousands of dollars to achieve my goals, but I'm already in an exceptionally good position. I'm just looking for the shortest path to the exit so I can put a legitimate end to all of these legal entanglements.
The more I study case-law, and the more I talk to judges and attorneys, the more I'm convinced that nobody understands the nuts and bolts of the law in general or the Bill of Review in particular. I need some advice to help me point my attorney in the right direction.
Let's start with this puzzle:
I'm convinced that the Bill of Review was granted contrary to the precedents established by previous case-law.
I tried to manage my lawyer in a way to demonstrate to the judge how to rule correctly. My attorney had no interested in being schooled by me and the judge had no interest in being schooled by my attorney. I'm interest in justice being served -- but I might be the only one involved who cares. In any case, that didn't happen and the Bill of Review was granted contrary to previous case-law.
My appeals attorney wanted to appeal -- sounds logical, no?
Well, appeals courts have previously ruled that a Bill of Review granted serves to re-open the underlying case. This is supposed to be followed by the court ruling on the matters raised by Bill of Review followed by a new judgement -- a new divorce decree in my case.
Previous appeals courts have ruled that a Bill of Review granted re-opens the underlying case and therefore is interlocutory and not subject to appeal. (More specifically, interlocutory appeals are restricted to a short list of very specific things that don't apply to my case.) So I can't appeal the Bill of Review until AFTER a new ruling is issued.
Another avenue to attack the validity of the Bill of Review is a Writ of Mandamus. Mandamus relief asks the appeals court to compel a government employee to perform his or her job in a manner consistent with law. This can be used to force a judge to comply with the law when the judge's actions aren't correct or proper.
Understandably, previous appeals court decisions have ruled that Mandamus relief is available only when no other remedy exists. Unfortunately for me, previous appeals courts have also ruled that they consider appeal to be an adequate remedy.
At first it was disheartening to realize that I couldn't seek Mandamus relief and an appeal had to wait until after a new judgement. But then I realized that any temporary order of the court (as is common in a divorce case) would trigger my ability to seek Mandamus relief because those can't be remedied by appeal.
Presently, the orders of the court simply grant the Bill of Review and the court docket shows the case as closed. More than 30 days have passed and nobody has filed any post-judgement motions.
Previous appeals court opinions show that a Bill of Review granted should be followed by a re-trial of the underlying case under the new (unique) case number of the Bill of Review. A new judgement should be issued under the new case number that disposes of all matters of the parties and voids the previous judgement issued under the previous case number -- none of this seems to be happening and nobody seems to understand that it is supposed to be happening.
In my case, there's no benefit to paying thousands of dollars for a re-trail and there's nothing useful about the new orders that'll result. At BEST it'll be as good as the results I've already got.
As of this moment, my appeals attorney has nothing he can appeal. If I let him, he'll do STUFF that'll cost MONEY and accomplish little or nothing. I asked him to stand-by until something actionable occurs.
Can anyone explain to me what is supposed to be happening and how to make it happen?
"Let sleeping dogs lie" comes to mind. But I'd prefer to understand the path out of this legal state of limbo so I can put this all behind me and get back to living life like normal people do.
While I appreciate the timeless wisdom of "find a good attorney", I need to know how to spot one when I see one. I need to be well informed.
Last edited:
