Court of Appeals of Texas, Dallas.

Frederick V. CANADY, Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 05-98-00008-CV.

|

Dec. 30, 1999.

Before Justices MORRIS, WHITTINGTON, and ROACH.

OPINION

MORRIS.

*1 In this case, Frederick V. Canady appeals the denial of his bill of review seeking to overturn a summary judgment entered against him in a previous lawsuit. Canady generally challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Finding no reversible error, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

In the suit underlying the bill of review, appellee American National Fire Insurance Company sought judicial review of a decision by the Texas Workers’ Compensation Commission Appeals Panel awarding Canady worker’s compensation benefits for injuries he allegedly sustained in a 1992 accident. American National moved for summary judgment in the underlying lawsuit after Canady failed to respond to its request for admissions. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 198.1(c). The trial court granted American National’s motion in August 1994.

Canady filed his bill of review in August 1996, about two and one-half months after he claims to have learned of the summary judgment. In his petition for bill of review, Canady alleged he was: (1) never served with process notifying him of American National’s lawsuit, (2) never served with or received a copy of American National’s motion for summary judgment, and (3) never served with American National’s request for admissions. He also claimed he did not assert these defenses to American National’s summary judgment motion because he was informed by the trial court that all proceedings in the case would be stayed until he was released from prison. After a trial before the court, the trial court denied Canady’s bill of review. On appeal, Canady contends the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are not supported by the evidence.

A bill of review is an equitable proceeding brought by a party seeking to set aside a prior judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to a motion for new trial. Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex.1998). Ordinarily, the petitioner must plead and prove: (1) a meritorious defense to the cause of action supporting the judgment, (2) fraud, accident, his adversary’s wrongful act, or an official mistake prevented him from asserting the defense and (3) the absence of any fault or negligence on his part. Id.; Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406-07 (Tex.1979).

After reviewing the record in this case, we conclude the trial court did not err in denying the bill for review because Canady did not plead or prove a meritorious defense to the cause of action supporting the underlying judgment. A meritorious defense is one that is not barred as a matter of law and would entitle petitioner to judgment on retrial if no evidence to the contrary is offered. See Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408-09. Canady’s alleged “defenses” do not even address the merits of American National’s underlying cause of action. Having determined that Canady failed to allege or present any evidence of a meritorious defense, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in denying Canady’s bill of review.

*2 We affirm the trial court’s judgment.