In Farias v. Besteiro, 453 S.W.2d 314, 319 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi 1979, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the petitioner alleged she had not received timely notice of the judgment.
The court determined that the most relief she could expect was being excused from complying with the second of the three Hagedorn requirements (Alexander v. Hagedorn), that she was prevented from setting forth a meritorious defense by the fraud, accident or mistake of the opposite party. Farias, 453 S.W.2d at 319.
"Appellant, in order to plead a cause of action in her bill of review, would still have to allege that she had a meritorious defense, and that her failure to present such defense was not caused by any fault of negligence of her own." Farias, 453 S.W.2d at 319.
Farias's alleged meritorious defense was found to be conclusory, vague, and so general as to be subject to the special exceptions which were filed. Id.