context: Extending the time period for avoiding or altering a judgment is inherently antagonistic to the systemic need for finality of judgments, which we have observed with particularity in the probate context.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 550 S.W.2d 18, 20
citation_a.parenthetical: "The fact that a meritorious claim might thereby be rendered no-nassertible is an unfortunate, occasional by-product of the operation of limitations."
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Little, 943 S.W.2d at 417 (“The need for finality of probate proceedings is well-recognized by this and other courts.”); see also Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1977) (“The fact that a meritorious claim might thereby be rendered no-nassertible is an unfortunate, occasional by-product of the operation of limitations.”). Bills of review are intrinsically incongruous with finality, and thus, are not lightly granted.
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 943 S.W.2d 417, 417
citation_b.parenthetical: "The need for finality of probate proceedings is well-recognized by this and other courts."
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Little, 943 S.W.2d at 417 (“The need for finality of probate proceedings is well-recognized by this and other courts.”); see also Robinson v. Weaver, 550 S.W.2d 18, 20 (Tex. 1977) (“The fact that a meritorious claim might thereby be rendered no-nassertible is an unfortunate, occasional by-product of the operation of limitations.”). Bills of review are intrinsically incongruous with finality, and thus, are not lightly granted.