Introduction
Few situations feel more alarming than learning that a divorce decree was signed years ago in a case you believed you knew nothing about. A recent memorandum opinion from the Fourteenth Court of Appeals in Houston — M.V.B. v. H.V.B., No. 14-25-00207-CV, 2026 WL 2339719 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 13, 2026, no pet. h.) (mem. op.), addresses exactly that scenario, and the answer it gives is a sobering one for anyone tempted to wait.
Per the published opinion, the husband in this case tried, seven years after the fact, to set aside a 2015 default divorce decree. He argued he was never properly served, that neither spouse actually lived in Texas when the case was filed, and that the resulting property division should be undone. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of his petition, holding that the decree was not void, that Texas residency requirements are not jurisdictional, and that his equitable bill of review came far too late.
For anyone weighing a Texas divorce, or worried about one that already happened, the case draws a hard line between judgments that are void and judgments that are merely voidable. That distinction determines whether a decree can be attacked decades later or becomes untouchable after four years. An experienced Dallas divorce attorney sees the consequences of that line every year, usually when it is already too late to change them.
Case Background: A Default Decree, an International Family, and a Seven-Year Gap
The spouses married in the Czech Republic and moved to Texas in 2000. Their son was born here, and the family lived in Texas until 2013, when they sold their home in Spring. After that, their living situation fractured across two countries, a fact pattern that drove every contested issue in the case.
In July 2015, the wife filed for divorce in the 257th District Court of Harris County. The process server could not reach the husband, so the wife moved for substituted service in August 2015. The server’s affidavit described repeated attempts at a Houston address, including one evening when a man at the door said the husband was “aware of it” and offered to pass along the server’s card. The court granted substituted service under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b), authorizing service by attaching the citation and petition to the front door.
The husband never answered. On October 28, 2015, the trial court signed a default final decree of divorce reciting that he had been “duly and properly cited” but “wholly made default.”
More than seven years later, in January 2023, the husband filed a petition for bill of review seeking to set the decree aside. He claimed he did not live at the address where papers were posted, that neither spouse met Texas residency requirements, and that he first learned of the Texas suit in June 2022.
The evidence at the bench trial cut the other way. The wife testified she personally handed him a copy of the decree at a Houston shopping mall on November 19, 2015, and produced a signed handwritten receipt confirming it. She also produced an April 2018 email to the husband from the Harris County Domestic Relations Office regarding child support arrearages bearing the same cause number as the divorce. The trial court found the wife credible, found the husband not credible, and found that he had notice of the decree in November 2015 and again in 2018. It voided only the child-related provisions of the decree, custody, support, and rights and duties, and denied all other relief.
Legal Analysis: Void Versus Voidable, and Why the Clock Matters
Is a Texas divorce decree void if service was defective?
Usually not. A judgment is void only when the rendering court lacked jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, lacked jurisdiction to enter the particular judgment, or lacked capacity to act. P.S.I.. v. R., 379 S.W.3d 267, 272 (Tex. 2012). A void judgment can be attacked at any time; anything less must be corrected through a direct attack filed within a defined window.
The husband argued that because he was in the Czech Republic, service should have proceeded under Rule 108a, which governs service in foreign countries and does not authorize the substituted service ordered here. The court did not reach that argument on its merits, for two reasons that matter in practice.
First, the appellate record was incomplete. The decree recited proper citation, and the trial court found the husband was served through alternative service. Appellate courts presume such findings are supported unless the record affirmatively shows otherwise, and he did not file the full record below.
Second, and decisively, Texas distinguishes between a technical defect in service and a complete failure of service. Only the latter offends due process. Id. at 273–74. A defendant who was improperly served but had actual notice of the judgment in time to attack it cannot claim the default is void on due process grounds. D. v. U.S.B., 987 S.W.2d 923, 926–28 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1999, no pet.). Because the trial court found the husband received the decree on November 19, 2015, within thirty days of signing, while a motion for new trial was still available, the void argument failed.
Do Texas residency and domicile requirements control the court’s jurisdiction?
No, and this is the ruling most likely to surprise divorcing spouses. Texas Family Code § 6.301 provides that a divorce suit may not be maintained unless, at the time of filing, a party has been a domiciliary of Texas for the preceding six months and a resident of the filing county for the preceding ninety days.
Those requirements are mandatory, but they are not jurisdictional. H. v. H., 879 S.W.2d 213, 216 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied); W. v. W., 494 S.W.2d 609, 611 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1973, no writ); see Ex parte T., 261 S.W.2d 833, 834–35 (Tex. 1953). A divorce granted on false residency testimony is therefore voidable, not void: it must be corrected on direct appeal or through a timely equitable proceeding. H., 879 S.W.2d at 216; see R. v. R., 118 S.W.3d 439, 443 (Tex. 2003).
That holding closed the door. Because the decree was voidable rather than void, the husband’s only remedy was a timely direct attack, and he did not bring one.
How long do you have to file a bill of review in Texas?
Four years from the date of the judgment. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 16.051; V. v. H., 465 S.W.3d 217, 226 (Tex. 2015). It is an equitable direct attack requiring proof of a meritorious defense, prevented by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party, unmixed with any fault or negligence of the petitioner.
The single clear exception is extrinsic fraud, fraud that denies a party the chance to litigate claims or defenses at all. K.R.I. v. C., 118 S.W.3d 742, 752 (Tex. 2003). Fraudulently avoiding service to take a judgment without actual notice can qualify. But extrinsic fraud does not toll limitations forever: even where it exists, the four-year period begins running when the litigant “knew or should have known” about the judgment. P.N.S.S., 379 S.W.3d at 277 n.16.
Applying that rule, limitations expired in November 2019 at the latest. The January 2023 petition was years late, and more than four years had passed even from the 2018 child support notice. The court also noted the husband did not argue extrinsic fraud on appeal, and the trial court’s supported findings foreclosed it regardless.
The property division was never reached
Because the bill of review was untimely, the court of appeals never examined the fourth issue, the division of the community estate. A trial court has jurisdiction to characterize community property even if it characterizes it incorrectly; an uncorrected error becomes final and immune from collateral attack. R., 118 S.W.3d at 443. For spouses with retirement accounts, business interests, or real property at stake, that is the warning embedded in this opinion, and one a Dallas high-net-worth divorce lawyer raises early: a flawed division you do not challenge in time is the division you keep.
One portion of the decree did fall. The trial court declared all child-related provisions void, and no party challenged that on appeal, a reminder that conservatorship and support orders rest on jurisdictional foundations distinct from the divorce itself, which is why a Dallas child custody lawyer evaluates those issues separately from property and marital status.
Key Takeaways for Dallas Divorcing Couples
Three lessons stand out. First, ignoring divorce papers does not make a case disappear; a default decree carries the same force as one entered after trial. Second, “the court had no business hearing this case” is rarely a jurisdictional argument, residency and domicile failures make a decree voidable, correctable only on a prompt direct attack. Third, the clock starts when you learn of the judgment, not when you decide to act on it.
If you have received citation, a decree, or even a child support notice referencing an unfamiliar cause number, the window to respond is measured in days and weeks, not years. A Dallas divorce attorney or Dallas family law attorney can identify which deadline applies before it closes. More case analyses are available on our family law blog.
Strategic Insights: What We’ve Learned From This Case
Working with a seasoned Dallas divorce attorney early changes what options remain available. Alternative approaches here might have altered the trajectory. Moving for a new trial within thirty days of receiving the decree in 2015, or filing a restricted appeal within six months, would have preserved the service challenge that limitations later erased. Filing a bill of review promptly after the 2018 child support notice would have fallen inside the four-year window. On appeal, presenting the complete reporter’s record and briefing extrinsic fraud directly might have preserved arguments the court found waived or unsupported.
Speak With a Dallas Divorce Attorney Before the Deadline Passes
For more than 25 years, the Law Office of Michael P. Granata has guided Dallas-area families through divorce, custody, and post-judgment disputes. Our small-team approach means you work directly with an experienced Dallas divorce attorney who will give you an honest assessment of your options rather than comfortable promises, strategic and tough in the courtroom, and compassionate with you.
If you are searching for a “divorce attorney near me” because papers arrived, deadlines are approaching, or an old order needs review, schedule a Dallas divorce lawyer consultation today. A Dallas child support lawyer or Dallas spousal support lawyer on our team can also review existing orders for enforceability.
Call (214) 977-9050 or visit our office at 6440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 450, Dallas, TX 75206.
Serving Dallas and Surrounding Communities
We represent clients throughout Dallas County and North Texas, including Irving, Richardson, Garland, Mesquite, Grand Prairie, DeSoto, Lakewood, Highland Park, Cockrell Hill, Lancaster, Seagoville, and Duncanville.
