Harold Lovejoy v. Melissa D. Lovejoy--Appeal from 216th Judicial District Court of Bandera County

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-04-00358-CV

Harold LOVEJOY,

Appellant

v.

Melissa D. LOVEJOY,

Appellee

From the 216th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7772-00

Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Sitting: Alma L. L pez, Chief Justice

Catherine Stone, Justice

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 6, 2005

AFFIRMED

Harold Lovejoy appeals the trial court s judgment denying his petition for a bill of review. We affirm.

1. Lovejoy first contends the trial court erred in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law. We disagree. Lovejoy waived this complaint by failing to file a notice of past due findings and conclusions. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 297; see also Las Vegas Pecan & Cattle Co. v. Zavala County, 682 S.W.2d 254, 255 (Tex. 1984) (holding that party s failure to timely file Rule 297 notice waives complaint that court failed to issue findings and conclusions).

2. Lovejoy next contends the trial court erred in denying his petition for a bill of review. We again disagree. Lovejoy s petition seeks to set aside an agreement incident to divorce and vacate that portion of the divorce decree incorporating the agreement and awarding Lovejoy s ex-wife Lovejoy s military retirement pay. However, Lovejoy s signature on the divorce decree establishes he had notice of it in time to move for a new trial or appeal; and he admitted at the hearing on the bill of review that he failed to do either, giving as his only excuse that he was not aware he needed to do so until his ex-wife moved to enforce the decree. Under these circumstances, we conclude Lovejoy is not entitled to a bill of review because he failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing all adequate legal remedies. See Wembley Inv. Co. v. Herrera, 11 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. 1999).

3. Finally, Lovejoy attacks the propriety of the divorce decree. However, our jurisdiction in this appeal is limited to the judgment denying Lovejoy s petition for a bill of review; we have no jurisdiction to review the divorce decree.

The trial court s judgment is affirmed.

Sarah B. Duncan, Justice