Nov. 23, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (upholding the denial of a bill of review because the applicant “could have filed a rule 306(a)(5) motion to extend the deadlines to seek relief’ but did not; and thus the applicant “has failed to produce evidence that her failure to file postjudgment motions or an appeal was unmixed with any fault or negligence of her own”); Moseley v. Omega OB-GYN Assocs. of S. Arlington, No. 02-06-00291-CV, 2008 WL 2510638, at *2 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth June 19, 2008, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (rendering judgment denying a bill of review where the petitioner failed to utilize Rule 306a and instead filed a bill of review); Smalling v. Smalling, Nos. 01-97-00246-CV & 01-98-00691-CV, 1998 WL 394349, at *2 (TexApp.-Houston [1st Dist.] July .16, 1998, .no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the trial court erred in
holding that notice of judgment was insufficient holding that a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment holding that a bill of review was improperly granted where the petitioner received notice of a default judgment on the thirtyfourth  day following judgment and failed to file a motion for new trial under the extensions contemplated by rule 306a holding that the meritorious defense requirement in a bill of review proceeding violates due process where the bill of review plaintiff has no notice of the proceeding in which the default judgment was rendered holding thata bill of review was unavailable where the petitioner had actual notice of a default judgment between twentyone and ninety days of the judgment but failed to utilize rule 306a