BERNARD J. DOLENZ, Appellant v. DALE A. WELLS AND JO BETH REED, Appellees

VACATED and DISMISSED; Opinion issued January 31, 2007
 
 
 
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
............................
No. 05-06-00840-CV
............................
BERNARD J. DOLENZ, Appellant
V.
DALE A. WELLS AND JO BETH REED, Appellees
.............................................................
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4
Dallas County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. cc-05-10834-D
.............................................................
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Wright, Bridges, and Mazzant
Opinion By Justice Mazzant
        Bernard J. Dolenz appeals the denial of his bill of review brought against Dale A. Wells and Jo Beth Reed. He brings two issues asserting (1) the trial court erred in denying the bill of review as Dolenz lacked notice of the underlying lawsuit; and (2) the trial court erred in holding Dolenz lacked standing to bring this bill of review action. We hold the trial court did not err in concluding Dolenz lacked standing as he was not a party to the underlying lawsuit. We vacate the trial court's judgment denying the bill of review and order the cause dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
BACKGROUND
        In 1993, Wells and Reed sued “Ken Topham a/k/a Bernard J. Dolenz.” Wells and Reed served Topham with the suit, but they did not serve Dolenz. In 1994, the trial court entered judgment against “Ken Topham a/k/a Bernard J. Dolenz.” Wells and Reed assigned the judgment to Lexington Financial Trust, which executed against real property owned by Dolenz's ex-wife and son.
        On August 22, 2005, Dolenz brought this bill of review seeking to have the underlying judgment set aside. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing. Dolenz testified that he received no notice of the underlying lawsuit, and he stated, “I have never been an a.k.a. of anybody-not Ken Topham or anybody.” Topham testified he had never held himself out to be Dolenz, had never been known by anyone as Dolenz, that Dolenz had never represented to Topham that Dolenz was Topham, and that he had “no idea where that a.k.a. came from.” Topham produced his driver's license to prove that he was Ken Topham. J. Duncan Webb, IV, Wells and Reed's attorney in the 1993 litigation, testified his firm hired a private investigator to find Topham, and the investigator reported that Topham was using the alias “Bernard J. Dolenz.” Webb testified, “We didn't sue Bernard Dolenz, never intended to sue Bernard Dolenz.”
        The trial court denied the bill of review and entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court found (1) the previous judgment from which relief was sought was against Ken Topham a/k/a Bernard Dolenz; (2) Dolenz is not the same person as Topham; (3) Topham did not join in the bill of review action; (4) Topham is the natural person against whom the judgment was taken; and (5) Topham was properly served in the previous action. The court concluded that (1) because the judgment was not against the natural person Dolenz, he lacks standing to seek relief in this action; (2) the court had no power to take away the judgment against Topham; (3) the judgment against Topham is valid and subsisting; (4) other remedies in equity exist by which Dolenz can seek the relief he seeks in this action; and (5) the bill of review should be denied.
STANDING TO BRING BILL OF REVIEW
        To have standing to bring a bill of review, the plaintiff in the bill of review action must have been a party to the prior judgment or have had a then-existing right or interest prejudiced by the judgment. Rodriguez ex rel. Rodriguez v. EMC Mortgage Corp., 94 S.W.3d 795, 798 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 2002, no pet.); Lerma v. Bustillos, 720 S.W.2d 204, 205 (Tex. App.-San Antonio 1986, no writ). Dolenz testified that he was not Topham and that he was not sued in the underlying case. Webb testified that Dolenz was not the target of the underlying lawsuit and that he was not sued. The uncontroverted evidence shows, and the trial court found, that Dolenz and Topham were different people. Dolenz presented no evidence showing he had a then-existing interest prejudiced by the 1993 litigation. The fact that the judgment listed the name “Bernard J. Dolenz” as an alias used by Ken Topham did not make another individual named “Bernard J. Dolenz” a party to the judgment. Thus, Dolenz lacked standing to bring this bill of review action.
        Dolenz argues that Webb and Reed should be judicially estopped from asserting he was not a party to the underlying judgment. However, standing cannot be conferred by estoppel. See Tex. Ass'n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 443-46 (Tex. 1993). The trial court did not err in concluding Dolenz lacked standing to bring this action. We overrule Dolenz's second issue. Because of our disposition of the second issue, we do not address Dolenz's first issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
DISPOSITION
        Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction and is a constitutional prerequisite to maintaining a suit under Texas law. Tex. Ass'n of Bus., 852 S.W.2d at 444; In re C.M.C., 192 S.W.3d 866, 869 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.). Dismissal is the appropriate disposition when the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Am. Motorists Ins. Co. v. Fodge, 63 S.W.3d 801, 805 (Tex. 2001). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court's judgment denying the bill of review and order the cause dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.
 
 
                                                          
                                                          AMOS L. MAZZANT
                                                          JUSTICE
 
060840F.P05