Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas
WILLIE JAMES HAYNES, II AND BRITA MICHELLE HAYNES A/K/A BRITA MICHELE HAYNES, Appellants
PHILIP HAWKES, Appellee
Appeal from the 192nd Judicial District Court Dallas County,
Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-05083
Justices Lang-Miers, Fillmore, and Stoddart
an appeal from a no-evidence summary judgment denying an
equitable bill of review seeking to set aside a prior default
judgment against appellants. Appellants contend the default
judgment was void due to pleading defects and, therefore,
they were not required to prove the three elements for a bill
of review. The trial court granted appellee's no-evidence
summary judgment, which challenged each of the elements for a
bill of review. We conclude the default judgment is not void
and appellants were required but failed to present summary
judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of fact on each
element for a bill of review. Accordingly, we affirm the
trial court's judgment.
underlying proceeding arises out of a property management
agreement between Philip Hawkes and Sky Group, LLC. In 2014,
Hawkes sued Sky Group, Willie James Haynes, II, and Brita
Michelle Haynes, a/k/a Brita Michele Haynes, for breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and fraud.
Hawkes alleged he entered into a property management
agreement with Sky Group to manage his real estate
properties. He also alleged:
• Sky Group, Willie, and Brita performed services under
the agreement, acting as real estate agents for Hawkes.
Hawkes alleged each of the defendants owed him a fiduciary
duty as his agent.
• Defendants failed to provide a full accounting of
money due to him and to turn over documents relating to the
properties after he terminated the management agreement.
• Willie and Brita, as agents and as fiduciaries to
Hawkes, were personally liable for the obligations owed to
• Willie was personally liable as the result of signing
the management agreement in his personal capacity.
• Defendants breached their contractual and fiduciary
duties to Hawkes by failing to timely distribute collected
rents to him.
• Brita made knowingly false representations to Hawkes
about a tenant's failure to pay rent and the initiation
of eviction proceedings against the tenant. These
representations were intended to "defraud" Hawkes
into believing he was not entitled to receive rents that were
due to him.
alleged the defendants breached the terms of the contract,
breached their fiduciary duties, and were negligent, by
failing to timely deliver a full accounting of all funds, any
funds held by defendants relating to the properties, and all
records in their possession relating to the properties. These
breaches caused damages in the amount of $9, 680. In
addition, Hawkes alleged the defendants knowingly made false
statements to him with the intent to induce him to continue
using them to manage his properties, that Hawkes relied on
the false statements to his detriment, and the fraud caused
damages in the amount of $9, 680. Hawkes requested
attorney's fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 38.001 for breach of contract.
trial court rendered a default judgment against appellants on
December 8, 2014. They did not file a motion for new trial,
direct appeal, or restricted appeal following the judgment.
Instead, over a year after the default judgment, appellants
filed a petition ...