Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Fuentes v. Zaragoza

Court of Appeals of Texas, First District

March 14, 2017

MIGUEL ZARAGOZA FUENTES, ET AL., Appellants
v.
EVANGELINA LOPEZ GUZMAN ZARAGOZA, Appellee

         On Appeal from the 245th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Case No. 2014-30215

          Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Bland.

          MEMORANDUM ORDER

          Jane Bland Justice.

         In this order, we determine whether the intervenors to a divorce proceeding have standing to appeal the final judgment. Evangelina Lopez Guzman Zaragoza has moved to dismiss the appeals brought by Dade Aviation, Inc., Abbington Marine, Inc., Ezar Management, LLC, Ezar Properties, L.P., Eagle Ridge Properties, LLC, Elsa Esther Anchondo Carrillo, Ernesto Carrillo, and Texas LPG Storage Company. Evangelina contends that these parties must be dismissed from the appeal for lack of standing because their interventions in the trial court were untimely. Because the intervenors filed their pleas in intervention before the trial court signed the final judgment, the pleas were not untimely. We therefore deny the motion.

         BACKGROUND

         Evangelina filed for divorce in May 2014 against Miguel Zaragoza Fuentes. Evangelina's petition named Miguel and each of the intervenors as parties, with the exception of Eagle Ridge Properties. Beginning in February 2015 and continuing through October 2015, Evangelina non-suited the intervenors initially named in her petition.

         Approximately a week before trial, Evangelina supplemented her amended petition, again naming Dade Aviation, Abbingdon Marine, Ezar Managment, Ezar Properties, and Esther Carrillo as co-respondents. The October 26 supplement did not name Ernesto Carrillo and Texas LPG Storage Company.

         At a pre-trial conference two days before trial, intervenors' counsel objected that Evangelina's supplemental petition sought affirmative relief against them. Evangelina confirmed that she would not seek affirmative relief from the intervenors and again nonsuited the intervenors on November 3, 2015.

         The case proceeded to trial the following day, November 4, and continued through November 5. Having been nonsuited, the intervenors did not appear at trial. On November 5, at the conclusion of the evidence, the trial court stated that, subject to the later submission of attorney's fees, it was "going to grant a divorce" in favor of Evangelina; it orally announced that it would accept Evangelina's proposed property division:

Therefore, based upon the pleadings on file and testimony presented today, subject to the submission of your attorney's fees and all of that, the Court's going to grant a divorce . . . . The Court will accept and make as its order the proposed division as set forth in the record, as the Court's just and right division under the pleadings and the evidence presented.

         On November 19 and December 10, the intervenors filed petitions to intervene in the case, claiming that property they owned was among the assets to be awarded as marital property in the divorce. Eagle Ridge, which was never previously named as a party, also intervened, contending that the proposed division purported to divide property owned by Eagle Ridge.

         On December 21, 2015, the trial court signed its Final Decree of Divorce. Miguel and the intervenors have filed separate appeals from the decree.

         DISCUSSION

         Evangelina requests that we dismiss the intervenors from the appeal because, she contends, they lack standing to appeal. Evangelina claims the intervenors lack standing because they were not parties to the underlying case, and their petitions to intervene were filed too late. See Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ledbetter, 251 S.W.3d 31, 36 (Tex. 2008) (petition in intervention is timely if filed before signing and rendition of final judgment). Intervenors' petitions, however, were filed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.