Bill of Review Case Advances: Court Notified of Case Misclassification, Ex Parte Withdrawn, Trial Reset Requested

Published: June 22, 2026  |  Category: Case Update

Tags: Bill of Review, 311th District Court, case posture, Rule 239a, due process

Letter Hand-Delivered to 311th District Court

On June 22, 2026, plaintiff Scott Allen Willis hand-delivered a formal letter to Court Coordinator Iris Garcia of the 311th District Court of Harris County, Texas, addressing critical procedural issues in the Bill of Review proceeding (Cause No. 202592876).

The letter raised five issues and made five corresponding requests.

1. Case Misclassified as Conservatorship Proceeding

The Scheduling Order issued April 20, 2026 sets the case for "Trial on the Merits" on July 20, 2026, using standard SAPCR language — including references to inventory and appraisement exchanges between "spouses" and mandatory mediation. However, this case is not a conservatorship modification. It is not an original SAPCR. It is a Bill of Review — an equitable proceeding to vacate a default judgment obtained through alleged extrinsic fraud.

A Bill of Review follows a distinct two-stage process: the court first determines whether the petitioner has established the three required elements under Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1979), and only then — if the bill is granted — does the underlying SAPCR proceed to a new trial on the merits.

The letter requests that the court reclassify the case and set it for a Bill of Review hearing, not a conservatorship trial.

2. Mediation Waiver Requested

The 311th District Court's standing order requires mediation in all cases before trial, with failure to mediate potentially resulting in dismissal for want of prosecution. This requirement was designed for disputes between two participating parties — not for an equitable proceeding in which one party alleges the other committed fraud to obtain a judgment behind his back.

Whether extrinsic fraud occurred is a question for the court, not a mediator. The letter requests the court waive the mediation requirement for the Bill of Review phase.

3. Pending Ex Parte Emergency Motion Withdrawn

When the original Bill of Review was filed on December 12, 2025, it included an Ex Parte Emergency Motion for Temporary Possession of Children. The court never ruled on that motion. The forthcoming First Amended Bill of Review supersedes the original filing and does not seek ex parte relief. The letter notifies the court that the Ex Parte motion is being formally withdrawn, with a Notice of Withdrawal to be filed on or about June 30, 2026.

4. Defendant Has Not Been Served

More than six months after the original filing, defendant Elizabeth Alvarado has not been served with process in the Bill of Review case. Service will be initiated on or about June 30, 2026. Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 99, Alvarado's answer would not be due until at or after July 21, 2026 — the day after the current trial setting.

5. Trial Reset Requested

Because the defendant has not been served, no discovery has been conducted, and the answer deadline falls after the trial date, the letter requests that the court reset the July 20 trial to a date not less than ninety (90) days after the defendant files her answer.

Upcoming Filings — June 30, 2026

The following documents are being prepared for filing on or about June 30, 2026:

• First Amended Bill of Review to Set Aside Default Judgment — The operative pleading, superseding the December 12, 2025 original. No ex parte relief sought.
• Notice of Withdrawal of Ex Parte Emergency Motion — Formally removing the pending emergency motion from the docket.
• Motion to Appoint Amicus Attorney — Requesting the court appoint an independent attorney to investigate and report on the best interests of the children under Texas Family Code § 107.021.
• Request for Certified Copies of Cause No. 202417675 — Requesting the complete record of the underlying SAPCR, including the return of service and reporter's record from the August 20, 2024 default hearing, with a fee waiver under TRCP 145.
• Motion to Continue Trial Setting — Requesting reset based on defendant not being served, no discovery conducted, and time needed for amicus investigation.

Service on the defendant will be initiated the same day.

Why This Matters for Reform

This case continues to illustrate the procedural gaps that the SAFE SAPCR Act is designed to close. More than twenty-two months after a default custody judgment was entered based on an alleged false Certificate of Last Known Address, the case remains in its earliest stages. No parent should have to spend years fighting to undo a judgment they never knew existed.

The SAFE SAPCR Act's proposed 45-day expedited hearing requirement for bills of review based on improper service would have resolved this case before the children went a single year without meaningful contact with their father.

Note added 3 August 2026. This post is left as published. At the time of writing the Act was described as requiring a 45-day expedited hearing; the figure in the section-by-section analysis is 60 days, and the summaries elsewhere on the site have been corrected to match. Dated posts are not rewritten after publication — see Corrections.

This update describes filings and procedural events in pending litigation. All referenced documents are or will be public court records available through the Harris County District Clerk. The defendant denies the allegations in the Bill of Review. No findings have been entered. This is not legal advice.