MEMORANDUM OPINION

Opinion By Justice LANG.

John Ervin Presley, pro se, appeals the trial court's order "rejecting" his bill of review. Presley filed a petition for bill of review seeking to set aside the property settlement incorporated in the judgment dissolving his marriage to Alicia McConnell-Presley. Presley raises three issues on appeal, arguing the trial court abused its discretion when it (1) "rejected" his bill of review because he presented "factually sufficient" evidence, (2) rendered the divorce decree after he revoked his consent to the property settlement, and (3) refused to file additional or amended findings of facts and conclusions of law. McConnell-Presley made a motion to dismiss and seeks the imposition of sanctions, arguing Presley filed a frivolous appeal. We conclude the trial court did not err when it "rejected" Presley's petition for bill of review because, as a matter of law, Presley did not make out a prima facie meritorious defense. Also, Presley failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the trial court erred when it refused to file additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law because the record contains no request for additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. We deny McConnell-Presley's motions to dismiss and for sanctions. The trial court's order "rejecting" Presley's bill of review is affirmed. Because all dispositive issues are well settled in law, we issue this memorandum opinion. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(a), 47.4.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Presley and McConnell-Presley divorced in 2005. An untimely appeal of the divorce decree by Presley was dismissed. Presley v. Presley, 214 S.W.3d 491 (Tex.App., 2006, no pet.). In 2007, Presley filed a petition for bill of review in which he alleged, inter alia, the following: [Presley] was prevented by [McConnell-Presley] from asserting rights to a greater share of the parties' marital estate than that awarded to [Presley] in the decree. Specifically, [Presley's own] attorney at the trial of his case actively obstructed his case and prevented the presentation of evidence which would have had a material bearing on the outcome of the case. [Presley's] failure to assert the claim was not a result of [his] negligence or fault. On April 29, 2008, a hearing was conducted. Presley offered no testimony, nor did he introduce any evidence to support his claim. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated Presley's bill of review was "rejected." On May 5, 2008, an "Order Rejecting Bill of Review" was signed. The Order expressly stated "neither [Presley's] petition nor any attachments provide . . . adequate facts to support the relief requested." On May 22, 2008, Presley filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. When the trial court did not respond, Presley filed a timely notice of past due findings of fact and conclusions of law. On June 19, 2008, the trial court issued findings of facts and conclusions of law. This appeal followed.

II. BILL OF REVIEW

We construe Presley's first two issues to assert the trial court abused its discretion when it "rejected" his bill of review because Presley presented "factually sufficient" evidence showing he was entitled to bill of review relief. McConnell-Presley responds that his petition for bill of review is "groundless with no merit."

A. Standard of Review

The grant or denial of a bill of review will not be disturbed unless the party seeking review affirmatively shows the trial court abused its discretion by acting in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner or without reference to any guiding rules and principles. Ramsey v. Davis, 261 S.W.3d 811, 815 (Tex.App. 2008, pet. denied). However, when the inquiry on a petition for bill of review concerns a question of law, an appellate court reviews the trial court's decision de novo. Mosley v. Dallas County Child Prot. Servs., 110 S.W.3d 658, 661 (Tex.App. 2003, pet. denied); see also In re L.N.M., 182 S.W.3d 470, 474 (Tex.App. 2006, no pet.).

B. Applicable Law

Upon the expiration of the trial court's plenary power, a judgment cannot be set aside by the trial court except by bill of review for sufficient cause, filed within the time allowed by law. Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(f). A bill of review is an independent equitable action brought by a party to a former action seeking to set aside a judgment that is no longer appealable or subject to a motion for new trial. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(d); see also Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004) ( citing Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex. 1979)); Petro-Chem. Transp. Inc. v. Carroll, 514 S.W.2d 240, 245 (Tex. 1974). "Generally, bill of review relief is available only if a party has exercised due diligence in pursuing all adequate legal remedies against a former judgment and, through no fault of his own, has been prevented from making a meritorious claim or defense by the fraud, accident, or wrongful act of the opposing party, or by a `mistake or error of the court or a functionary thereof in the discharge of official duties.'" Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 660-61 ( citing Wembley Inv. Co. v. Herrera, 11 S.W.3d 924, 927 (Tex. 1990) (per curium) and Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 407). Because the burden on the bill of review petitioner is heavy, the grounds upon which a bill of review can be granted are narrow and restricted. Transworld Fin. Servs. Corp. v. Briscoe, 722 S.W.2d 407, 407 (Tex. 1987) ( citing Alexander v. Hagedorn, 226 S.W.2d 996, 998 (Tex. 1950). A petition seeking relief by bill of review must allege "factually and with particularity that the prior judgment was rendered as the result of fraud, accident or wrongful act of the opposite party or official mistake unmixed with his own negligence." Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408). Further, the petitioner must allege "with particularity, sworn facts sufficient to constitute a meritorious defense, and, as a pretrial matter, present prima facie proof to support the contention." Id. ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408). Whether a meritorious defense is "made out" is a question of law for the trial court. In re L.N.M., 182 S.W.3d at 474 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408-09). A meritorious defense "is made out when it is determined that the [alleged] defense is not barred as a matter of law and that [the petitioner] will be entitled to judgment on retrial if no evidence to the contrary is offered." Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408-09); see also Martin v. Martin, 840 S.W.2d 586, 591 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1992, writ denied). "In cases involving bills of review to set aside divorce decrees regarding division of property, courts have held that a meritorious claim is presented by proof that the petitioner `would obtain a more favorable property division on retrial.'" Elliott v. Elliott, 21 S.W.3d 913, 919 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2000, pet. denied) ( citing Martin, 840 S.W.2d at 592). A trial court may hold a preliminary hearing to determine whether the petitioner has presented prima facie proof of a meritorious defense. In re L.N.M., 182 S.W.3d at 474 ( citing Boateng v. Trailblazer Health Enter., 171 S.W.3d 481, 488 (Tex.App. 2005, pet. denied) ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409)). Prima facie proof may be comprised of documents, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits on file along with such other evidence that the trial court may receive in its discretion. Martin, 840 S.W.2d at 591 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409). The trial court "may receive evidence from both parties, but only on the issue whether the defense is barred as a matter of law: `factual questions arising out of factual disputes are resolved in favor of the complainant for the purposes of this pretrial, legal determination.'" Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409). If prima facie proof has been shown, then the court will conduct a trial on the merits of the bill of review. In re L.N.M., 182 S.W.3d at 474 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409). However, if the trial court determines that a prima facie meritorious defense has not been shown, the proceeding terminates and the trial court shall dismiss the case. Id. at 474-75 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409).

B. Application of the Law to the Facts

Each of the following conclusions of law focus upon the burden of Presley to allege and show a meritorious defense: .

1. The Court found that JOHN PRESLEY failed to allege and show a meritorious defense and that he was not at fault or negligent in being unable to assert the meritorious defense.

2. The Court found that JOHN PRESLEY failed to allege with specificity facts adequate to constitute a meritorious claim or defense and provide prima facie proof of such a claim or defense.

3. The Court found that JOHN PRESLEY failed to show that he was prevented from fully presenting his case by the fraud or deception of his attorney and how the attorney actively obstructed his case.

The trial court's determination about whether Presley presented prima facie proof of a meritorious defense was a question of law. In re L.N.M., 182 S.W.3d at 474. Thus, we review the record de novo. Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661. Although Presley does not specifically challenge the trial court's conclusions of law, we construe his argument that he presented sufficient evidence to be a challenge of the conclusions of law made by the trial court. Our de novo review of the record shows Presley did not plead specific facts in his petition, attach evidence to his petition, testify, or introduce any evidence at all during the hearing to show a meritorious defense. At the hearing, Presley's counsel gave only a short description of Presley's contentions. Presley's petition merely stated, without factual or evidentiary support, Presley was prevented by McConnell-Presley from asserting rights to a greater share of the parties' marital estate, Presley's own attorney prevented the presentation of material evidence, and Presley's failure to assert his claim was not a result of his own negligence or fault. Such bare conclusory statements are insufficient. Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408-09; cf. Elliott, 21 S.W.3d at 918-20 (discussing the detailed specificity of the allegations and supporting evidence presented by the petitioner in Martin v. Martin, ultimately entitling her to relief by bill of review). In his brief, Presley contends the trial court "disregarded all pleadings, stipulations during the Bill of review trial." Presley attaches several documents in the appendices to his brief that he argues show the trial court erred when it "rejected" his bill of review. However, an appellate court cannot consider documents that are cited in the brief and attached as appendices if they are not formally included in the record on appeal. Burke v. Ins. Auto. Auctions, 169 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex.App. 2005, pet. denied). The record does not specifically identify the hearing conducted by the trial court as a trial on the merits of the bill of review or as a preliminary hearing on the meritorious defense issue. See Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409. However, a pretrial showing of a meritorious defense was required for Presley to carry his burden as a bill of review petitioner. See Mosley, 110 S.W.3d at 661 ( citing Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 409). It appears the hearing was preliminary because neither party offered testimony, documentary evidence, or asked for a jury to be empaneled, the scope of the argument was primarily confined to Presley's claimed "meritorious defense," and the trial court concluded, in part, that Presley failed to provide "prima facie proof of such a claim or defense." See Baker, 582 S.W.2d at 408-09. We conclude the trial court did not err when it "rejected" Presley's petition for bill of review because, as a matter of law, Presley did not make out a prima facie meritorious defense. Id. at 408-09; see also Martin, 840 S.W.2d at 591; Elliott, 21 S.W.3d at 918-20. Issues one and two are decided against Presley.

III. REQUEST FOR AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In issue three, Presley argues the trial court erred when it refused to file additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. However, there is nothing in the record showing Presley filed a request for additional or amended findings and conclusions as required by Rule of Civil Procedure 298. Presley does include a request for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law in the appendices to his brief. As previously stated, an appellate court cannot consider documents that are not formally included in the record. See Burke, 169 S.W.3d at 775. We conclude Presley failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that the trial court erred when it refused to file additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law because there is no request for additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record on appeal. See id. Issue three is decided against Presley.

IV. DISMISSAL AND SANCTIONS

McConnell-Presley made a motion to dismiss and seeks the imposition of sanctions against Presley for filing a frivolous appeal. We deny McConnell-Presley's motions.

V. CONCLUSION

The trial court did not err when it "rejected" Presley's petition for bill of review. Presley failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the trial court erred when it refused to file additional or amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. McConnell-Presley's motions to dismiss and for sanctions are denied. The trial court's order "rejecting" Presley's bill of review is affirmed.