parties learned of the judgment more than twenty but less than ninety-one days after the judgment was signed, Rule 306a was available to extend the time to file a motion for new trial or other post-judgment motion. See id. R. 306a(5); Estate of Howley, 878 S.W.2d at 140; In re J.S., 392 S.W.3d at 337. Real parties nevertheless did not attempt to utilize rule 306a to extend the time for filing a motion to reinstate or motion for new trial once they received notice of the judgment. See Id. R. 306(1),(4),(5). Accordingly, real parties were not entitled to relief by bill of review because they failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing their available legal remedies following the final judgment. See Steward v. Steward, 734 S.W.2d 432, 434, 435-36 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth .1987, no writ), (<HOLDING>); see also Martinez v. Martinez, No.
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 holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him 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 a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment precluded default judgment 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