concurring.
I concur in the judgment and join in the Court’s disposition of issues one, three, and four. I would not reach issue two because I believe a party filing a bill of review within six months has acted diligently, and should not have to guess whether a restricted appeal was also available.
A bill of review is generally available only to parties with no other adequate legal remedy. Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 585, 537 (Tex.1998). If a judgment is less than six months old, a restricted appeal may be one such remedy. Tex. R.App. P. 26.1(c), 30. A party who discovers an adverse judgment during that time and does nothing loses any right to review. See Hesser v. Hesser, 842 S.W.2d 759, 765-66 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, writ denied).
But a restricted appeal is an adequate remedy only if (1) the appellant did not participate in the hearing that resulted in the judgment, and (2) error is apparent on the face of the record. Id. It is often difficult for practitioners to know whether these conditions apply. The amount of participation allowable is a matter of degree that varies from case to case. Texaco, Inc. v. Central Power & Light Co., 925 S.W.2d 586, 589 (Tex.1996).
Even more uncertain is whether error is “apparent on the face of the record.” For example, courts have reached apparently conflicting conclusions as to whether the following errors qualified:
*776• Notices sent to an unsupported address. Compare General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. City of Houston, 857 S.W.2d 731, 733-34 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ) (dismissal notice that omitted suite number constituted error apparent on the face of record) with Robert S. Wilson Invs. No. 16 Ltd. v. Blumer, 837 S.W.2d 860, 862 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, no writ) (trial setting sent to address completely different from that noted on attorney’s notice of substitution did not constitute error apparent on face of record).
• Spelling errors on citation or return. Compare Avila v. Avila, 843 S.W.2d 280, 281-82 (Tex.App.—El Paso 1992, no writ) (difference between “Darlene Pirtle Avila” on citation and “D.P. Avila” on return constituted error apparent on face of record) with Stephenson v. Corporate Servs., Inc., 650 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Tex.App.—Tyler 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (difference between “Jim Stephenson, President” on citation and “James Stephenson, President” on return did not constitute error apparent on face of record).
• Uncertainty as to documents served. Compare Becker v. Russell, 765 S.W.2d 899, 900-01 (Tex.App.—Austin 1989, no writ) (failure to indicate service of order authorizing substituted service constituted error on face of record) with Burns v. State, 881 S.W.2d 132, 134 (Tex.App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, no writ) (same failure did not constitute error on face of record).
This uncertainty creates a dilemma for parties choosing whether to appeal by restricted appeal or bill of i review. A restricted appeal requires formal record preparation, briefing schedules, and opinion writing that increases costs and delays for litigants and the judicial system. But appealing by bill of review in the trial court is fatal if it is ultimately determined (perhaps years later) that the proper course was restricted appeal.
A cautious party may pursue both remedies simultaneously, see, e.g., Smith v. Commercial Equipment Leasing Co., 678 S.W.2d 917, 917 (Tex.1984), or serially (so long as the restricted appeal is filed first), see, e.g., General Electric Co. v. Falcon Ridge Apartments, Joint Venture, 811 S.W.2d 942, 944 n. 2 (Tex.1991). But it is carrying equity too far when a party must exercise not just diligence but redundance.
There are several other reasons to encourage parties to proceed by bill of review rather than restricted appeal:
• The trial court may rectify its own errors, thus0eliminating the need for appellate review.
• All facts are considered, rather than just those appearing on the face of the record. See, e.g., Caldwell v. Barnes, 975 S.W.2d 535, 537 (Tex.1998) (bill of review considering process server’s post-judgment affidavit); cf. Stankiewicz v. Oca, 991 S.W.2d 308, 312 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1999, no writ) (restricted appeal refusing to consider post-judgment proof that service address was incorrect).
• Discovery is available. See, e.g., Hesser, 842 S.W.2d at 765 (considering defendant’s deposition admission that she ignored legal notices sent to her).
• Trial is to a jury. See, e.g., Axelrod R & D, Inc. v. Ivy, 839 S.W.2d 126, 129 (Tex.App.—Austin 1992, writ denied).
In this case, it is undisputed that Wolfe did not learn of the dismissal for want of prosecution until more than three months and less than six months had passed. Thereafter, he promptly filed a bill of review. He was only required to show diligence, not prescience (as to the proper form of appeal) or redundance. Because *777Wolfe acted diligently, I would not reach the question whether a restricted appeal was available.