### NUM BER 13-0 8-00 708- CV COURT OF A PPE A LS T H I RT E E N T H D I S T R I C TO F T E XAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN T H E GU A R D IA N SH IP O F RAQU ELC A N T U D E VI L LA R R EA L ,

A N INC A PACITA

TE D PER SON On a p p ea l f ro m th e C o u n ty C o u rta t L awN o . 2 of C amero n Co un ty , T exas . 

### OP I NI ON Be fo re Ju stice s Y añ ez, R od rigu ez, an d Garza Opin ion b y

Ju stice R od rigu ez Appe llant s, Ig naci o Vi ll ar re al Can tu, Fer nando V il lar re al Can tu, Ma rt ha Guadal upe Vi ll ar re al Ca n tu , a nd C onsue lo Vi ll ar re al Can tu, seek to re v erse an order confir ming an a rb it ra ti on award i n fa v or of appel lee s, Raq uel Vi ll ar re al Can tu, ind iv idu all y

and in her

ca paci ty

as g uardia n of the per son of Doña Raq uel C antu de Villarreal, Marcelo Villarreal Cantu , and Carlos Villarrea l Ca ntu . By three issue s, appel lan ts cont end t hat t he a ward shoul d be v acat ed bec ause the a rb it ra tor ex ceede dSan Pedr o I m pulsor

a de I nm uebles Especiales, S. A. , de C

. V. v. Vi llar real , No. 1 3- 09 - 00 22 6- C V, 1 20 10 T ex . A pp . LE X I S __ _ (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i N ov. 18 , 2 0 1 0 , n o p e t. h.) (affi rm i ng t he de ni al of a c o rp o ra ti o n ’ s s p e c i a l a p p e a ra n c e ); I n re D e Vi llar real , N o. 13- 08- 00408 - C V, 200 9 T ex. App. LEX I S 2249, at * 1 1 - 1 2 ( T e x . A p p .– C o r p u s C h r is ti A p r . 2 , 2 0 0 9 , p e t. d e n ie d ) (m e m . o p .) ( a ff ir m in g in p a r t a n d d is m is s in g in par t t he a ppeal of

I gnaci o, C onsuel o, Fer nando , and M ar t ha r egar di ng t wo post -j udgm ent or der s enf or ci ng a j u d g m e n t a n d i s s u i n g w rit s o f a tta c h m e n t); In re C a n tu , N o. 13- 08- 00682 - C V, 2009 T ex. App. LEX I S 2241, at * 1- 2 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Apr

. 2, 200 9, or i g. pr oceedi ng [ m and. deni ed] ) ( m em . op. ) ( deny i ng p et i t i on f orwr i t of

m andam us f i l ed b y C onsuel o con t endi ng t hat t he t r i al c ou rt fa i l ed t o sat i sfy “ t he m andat or y and j ur i sdi ct i onal not i ce r equi r em ent s of t he T exas Pr obat e C ode” because i t hel d an i ni t i al guar di anshi p he ar i ng and appoi nt ed a t em por ar y gua r di an “ wi t hout gi v i ng t he pr oposed w ar d pr i ornot i ce as r equi r ed by sect i on 8 75 o f th e T e x a s P ro b a te C o d e ”) ; I n r e de Vi llar real , N o. 13- 08- 00707 - C V, 200 9 T ex. App. LEX I S 2233, at * 1 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i Apr

. 2, 200 9, no pet

. ) ( percur i am ) ( m em . op. ) ( di sm i ssi ng I gnaci o’ s appeal of an or der re m o v i n g h i m a s g u a rd i a n o f th e p e rs o n o f D o ñ a R a q u e l ); In re C a n tu , N o. 13- 08- 00437 - C V, 200 8 T ex. App. L E X IS 5 7 9 5 , a t *1 -2 ( T e x . A p p .– C o rp u s C h ris ti J u l y 3 0 , 2 0 0 8 , o rig . p ro c e e d i n g [m a n d . d e n i e d ]) (m e m . o p .) ( deny i ng p et i t i on f orwr i t of m andam us f i l ed b y I gnaci o, Fer nando , C onsuel o, and M ar t ha se eki ng t o com pel th e tri a l c o u rt to va c a te va rio u s o rd e rs p e rta i n i n g to th e g u a rd i a n s h i p o f D o ñ a R a q u e l ). 2 h i s p o w e rs i n s e v e ra l re s p e ct s a n d re f u s e d t o p o s t p o n e t h e a r b i t ra t i o n h e a r i n g . W e aff ir m. I. B A CKGRO UND Doñ a R aq uel C antu d e V ill a rreal ( “D oña R aq uel ”) , an eld er ly w ido w , i s t he mother of se ven adul t c hil dren, i ncl udi ng appel lan ts and app ell ees. D is putes between the c hil dren reg ardin g D oña R aq uel ’s ca re and cus to dy and the d is posi ti on of her siz eab le esta te ha v e giv en rise to a se ries of highly conte ntiou s legal proce e d ings, inc lud ing four appeal s and two or ig ina l proceed ing s. W e w il l not addre ss th e fa ct ual 1 and procedu ra l under pin nin g s o f these dis putes ex ceptas nec essar y to address the leg al is sues per

ti nent to t his appeal

. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 7.1, 47.4. Follow ing a co u rt -o rd ered med iation to resolve some of the fam ilial dispute s, Doñ a R aq uel ’s ch il dren ent ered i nto a n “ Ir re v ocabl e F amil y Settl ement Agre e m e nt, Ass ig nment, and R ele ase and R ule 11 Ag re ement.” Thi s a g re emen t was ente re d i nto and s ig ned by

al l sev en of the chi ldren. The ag re ement prov ide s t hat i t was made: [F ]or the pur pose of sett li ng the vari ous cl aims , c ontrov ersi es, and dispu tes, in Mexico and th e United State s, civ il and c ri min al, am ong the se“H o tc h p o tc h ” m a y b e g e n e ra l l y d e fin e d a s “ th e b l e n d i n g o f p ro p e rti e s to s e c u re e q u a l i tyo f d i v i s i o n .” 2 B RY A N A. G ARN ER , A D I C TI O N AR Y OF M OD E RN L EG AL U SAGE 4 0 8 (2 d e d . 1 9 9 5 ); s e e a ls o In th e G u a rd ia n s h ip of D e Vi llar real , N o. 1 3-0 8-0 04 08 -C V , 2 00 9 T ex . A pp . LE X I S 22 49 , at *4-5 n

. 3 (T ex . A pp . –C orp us C hri s t i A pr. 2, 20 09 , pe t

. de ni ed ) ( m em . op . ). 3 par ti es ar is ing out of the facts a n d ci rc umstan ces rela ti ng di re ctl y or ind irect ly to th e transfer

and/ or g ifti ng of proper

ty of [D oña R aq uel ] and /or Ig naci o Vi ll ar re al, the ca re and s uppor t of [D oña R aq uel ], and al l other cl aims , c ontrov ersi es, and dis putes , c ivil a n d cr imi nal , betw een t he par ti es ar is ing pr ior

to the d ate o f this Ag re ement. The ag re ement de fines the s cope of Doña Raq uel ’s es tate and put s v ar iou s p ro p erti es int o “ hotc hpotc h” for d is tr ibu ti on to the sev en c hil d re n , and furt her i ncl udes prov is ion s 2 perti n e n tt o t h e g u a rd i a n s h i p , c a re , a n d w e l fa re o f D o ñ a R a q u e l

. T h e a g reement cont ain s a n ar bit ra ti on prov is ion and prov ide s that Rey nal do Gar z a, Jr ., the medi ator

for the medi ati on resul ti ng i n the ag re ement, “s hal l be th e ar bit ra tor of anydi sput e re g ardin g the int e rp re tati on and impl ementati on of thi s Ag re ement.” The ag re ement ex pre ss ly s tates thatGar z a’s “ deter minat ion of any di sput e reg ardin g thi s Ag re ement and i ts impl ementati on . . . s hal l be final wit h n o p a rt y hav ing the ri g ht t o appea l, ” and the “ i mp l em en ta ti on o f t hi s [A] g ree me nti nc l ud es t he ma nn er i n w hi c h th e [h ]o tc hp ot ch is to be distribu ted to the sev en ch ildren . . . .” The tr ial co urt app ro v ed th e s ettl ement ag re ement an d i ncor porated iti nto t he final j udg ment in the case by a firs t amended order

sig ned on Febr uar

y 14, 2008. Soon after the a g re ement was si g ned, how ev er , t he c h ild re n beg an arg uin g aboutthe ag re ement’ s i mplement ati on. Al leg ing thatappel lan ts breache d the ag re ement an d faile d to abi de by

the jud g ment, Raq u e l mov ed for an ac count ing , c ontempt, a temporar

y rest ra ini ng order , and temporar y and per manent i nju nct ion s. The g ra v amen of Raq uel ’s co mplai nt was that appel lan ts w it hdre w 3 4 mi ll ion pes os, w hic h w as4

r e fe re n c e d i n a n d a l l o c a t e d b y t h e s e tt l e m e n t a g re e m e n t , f ro m t h e p o s s e s s i o n o f a Me x ic an c our

t, but fai led to depos itthe monie s in to a Mex ic an tr ustas req uired by the ag re ement an d j udg ment. On J une 11, 2008, the tr ial co urt ent ered an order g ra nti ng R aq u e l’s m oti on and: order ing appel lan ts to de posi t t he money into an ac countcreated for th e benefitof the tr ustre fe re n ce d i n the ag re ement an d to prov ide a de tai led ac count ing reg ardin g the money ; enj oin ing appel lan ts from se ll ing , enc umber ing , or othe rw is e transfer ri ng any of the real es tate p ro p e rtie s d esc ri bed i n the ag re ement i n any manner i ncons is tent w it h the a g re ement; setti ng a f in a l hear ing for J une 27, 2008; and order ing appel lan ts to appea r at t hat t ime “t o s how thei r compl ian ce w it h thi s C our t’ s O rd er herein to show w hy this Court’s Order sh o u ld b e v acat ed. ” On Jun e 27 , Ignacio, Ferna ndo , Consu elo and M artha fai led to appear , and ac cordin g ly , t he trial c o u rt ent ered an order for is suanc e of w ri ts of attac hment ag ain st them. On June 9, 2008, the tr ial cour t entered an order cl ar ify ing some of i ts pr e vious orders a nd c ompell ing ar bit ra ti on. The matter w as ar bit ra te d o n Augus t 18, 2008. Appel lan ts did not submi t proposa ls , c omments, o r re sp o nses to the a rb it ra tor re g ardin g the issues s ubj ectto ar bit ra ti on and did not personal ly appear at the ar b i t ra t i o n , a l t h o u g h t h e y w e re re p re s e n t e d b y

c o u n s e l a tt h e h e a r i n g . O n S e p t ember 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 , t h e a rb it ra t o r i s s u e d a n e ig h t e e n p a g e a rb it ra t io n a wa rd , in c lu d in g e xt e n s ive factual an d l e gal con cl usi ons, w hic h g enerall y co ll ect ed and div ide d the es tate of Doña Raq uel and prov ide d for her ca re . After appel lee s mov ed to con f irm the award and5

appel lan ts mov ed to va ca te i t, the t ri al cour t ent ered an order

co nfir ming the aw ard. This appeal ens ued. II. S TA NDA RD A ND S COPE OF R EVI EW Rev iew of a tr ial co urt’ s deci si on as to v acat ur or co nfir mati on of an ar bit ra ti on aw ard i s d e nov o and the a ppel lat e co u rtr e views t he ent ire record. Chest nut E ner gy Par tner s v. Tapi

a (In re Che stn ut Ener gy Par tn e rs, In c.) , 3 0 0 S

. W

. 3 d 3 8 6 , 3 9 7 (T e x. App.–D all as 2009, pet. deni ed) ; S ta te w ide Re mo de li

n g, In c . v. W

il lia ms , 244 S.W .3d 564 , 567 (Tex. App. –Dallas 2 0 0 8, no pet. ); see Hisaw & Assocs. Ge n. Con tracto rs, Inc. v. Cor ner sto ne C oncr

ete S ys ., Inc

. , 1 1 5 S

. W

. 3 d 1 6 , 1 8 ( Te x . A p p . – F o rtW orth 20 03, pet . den ied). III . VA CA TUR OF A RBI TR A TI ON A WA RD Beca us e T e xa s la w

favors arbitration, jud icial rev iew of an arbitrat ion award is extraordin ar il y

nar ro w . E. T

ex. Salt Water Disposal C o. v . Werl ine , 307 S.W .3d 2 67, 271 ( Tex . 201 0) ; see CV N Gr oup, Inc . v

. D elg ado , 95 S. W .3d 234 , 238 (Tex. 2002 ); Sta tew ide Remodeling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 568; GJR Mgm t. Holding s, L.P. v. Jack Rau s, Ltd. , 126 S.W .3d 257 , 263 (Tex. App. –Sa n Ant onio 200 3, pe t. de nied ); IPC O- G.&C . Join t Ve ntur e v . A. B. Chan ce Co. , 6 5 S

. W

. 3 d 2 5 2 , 2 5 6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 200 1, pe t. deni ed) . “ Subj ect ing ar bit ra ti on awards to j udi ci al re v iew adds ex pense and del ay , t hereby di mini shi ng the benefitsof ar bit ra ti on as an ef f icient, e cono mica l system for resolv ing dispute s.” C VN G r ou p, Inc. , 95 S. W .3d a t 238. But see Mo r

r i s o n v . Ci r c u it City Stor

es , 317 F .3d 6 69, 6 69- 70 ( 6th C ir . 200 3) (n oti ng th a t a r b i t ra t i o n c a n o ft e n b e mu c h mo re e x p e n s i v e fo r c o n s u me rs t h a n a6

com para ble case in li t ig ation ); Eagle v . F re d M ar ti n Motor C o. , 809 N .E.2 d 1177, 1178- 84 ( Ohi o App. D iv . 200 4) ( dis cus si ng prohi bit iv e c ost s o f a rb it ra ti on c ompared to litig ati on for many

co nsumers) ; see als o Ri chard M . Al der man, Wh y We R e a l l y Need the Arbitration Fairness Act, It’ s All About

Sepa ration of Powers , 12 J. C ONS UM ER & C OM . L. 151 , 154 n. 55 ( 2009) ( “A lt houg h mostsmal l cl aims co urts prov ide a j udg e and jur y for l ess than $100, the cos ts of arbi trati on far ex ceed thi s a mount. A re centst udy by Publ icC it iz en c oncl udes that the c ost s o f arbi trati on al most alway s e x ceed the c ost s of li ti g ati on.” ); Theodore Ei senbe rg , G eoff re y P. Mi ll er

& E mil y

Sher w in, A r b it r a t io n ’s Sum m er Soldie rs : AnEm

pir ical Study o f Ar

bit ra ti on Clau ses

i n C onsum er

and Non cons um er

C ontr act s , 41 U. M I CH . J.L

. R E F O R M 871, 895 ( 2008) ( sta ti ng that

“ c or po rat i on s ’ s el ecti v e us e of a r bi trat i on c l au s es a g ai ns t c on s um ers , bu t no t against each other , s ug g est s t hat t hei r use of mandator y ar bit ra ti on c lau ses may be b ased m o re o n st ra t e gi ca d v a n t a ge ” i n d e fe n d in g a ga in s tco n s u m e r c la im s ); Ma rkB u d n it z, The High C o st

o f M andator y C onsum er

Ar bit ra ti on , 67 L AW & C O N TE MP . P R OBS . 133 , 133 (2004 ) ( conclu ding thatthe costof man dat oryarbitration is oft en p rohibitively high). The Tex as Supre m e C our t has “ lon g hel d tha t ‘ an award of ar bit ra tors u pon ma tters sub mitt ed to them is g iv en th e sam e ef fect as th e ju d gm entof a court of

last re sor t. Al l re asona ble presumpt ion s a re i ndul g ed i n fav or of the a w ard, an d none ag ai ns t it.’” CV

N G roup , Inc. , 9 5 S. W .3 d at23 8 (quo ti n g City of San Anto nio v. McKenz ie Con str

. C o. , 136 Te x . 315 , 150 S.W .2d 989 , 996 (T ex. 19 41) (“The co urts w ill not ov erthrow

an a w ard s uch as thi s, ex cepti n a ve ry c lear cas e.” ))

. R ev iew of an a rb it ra t ion award is so l imite d tha t an award ma y not be v acat ed e v en if there is a7

mis tak e of fact or

l aw . Univ. Com

p. Sys., Inc. v. Deale r Solution s, L.L .C. , 183 S.W .3d 741, 752 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Dis t. ] 2 0 05, p et. deni ed) ; Sti er en v . McBr oom , 103 S.W .3d 6 02, 6 05 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2003, pet. deni ed) ; Verno n E. F aulco ner , In c. v. HFI, Ltd. P’

ship , 970 S.W .2d 3 6 , 3 9 ( T ex. App.– T y ler 1998 , no pe t.). Th e arbitrat or’s award i s “ c on c l us i v e on th e pa rti es as to al l ma tt ers of fact and law .” Ph e ng In vs., Inc. v. Rod ri quez , 196 S

. W

. 3d 3 22, 328 (Tex. App. –Fort W orth 20 06, no pe t.). W here there is no a ll eg ati on of a s tatut or y or co mmon la w

gro u n d t o va cat e or

modi fy the a rb it ra ti on aw ard , we la ck

j ur is dicti on to rev iew

the ar bit ra tor ’s dec is ion

. F ogal v. Sta tur

e C onst r. , Inc. , 294 S.W .3d 7 08, 7 21 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Dist. ] 200 9, pe t. deni ed) ; Pr ovi dia n Banc or p Ser vs . v . T hom as , 255 S.W .3d 411 , 415 (Tex. App. –El Pa so 20 08, no pe t.); Pettus v. Pettus , 237 S.W .3d 4 05, 4 18 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 20 07, p et. deni ed)

. T he T exas Ci v il Practice and Reme dies Cod e d ic t a t e s t hat , unle ss g roun ds are offered for v acat ing , modi fyi ng , or co rrect ing an a w ard under othe r sp eci fied s ect ion s o f the c ode, the c our

t, on appl ic ati on of a p a rt y, sh a ll co nfir m the aw ard. SeeT EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 17 1.0 87 (Ve rnon 200 5). Th us, “ c o n f ir ma tion is the default res ul t un l es s a c ha l l en g e to th e award ha s be en or i s be i ng c on s i de red.” Ha mmv. Millenn iumIncome Fund, L .L.C. , 178 S.W .3d 2 56, 2 62 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 st Dist.] 200 5, pe t. de nied ). T h e g roun ds for v acat ing an aw ard un der the code are set ou t in secti on 171. 088( a) , w hic h s tates : On ap pli cat ion of a par ty , t he c our

t s hal l v acat e an aw ard i f: ( 1 ) the a w a rd w a s o b t a i ned byco rr upti on, fr aud, or othe r undue me ans; (2 ) the r ig hts of a par ty w ere preju dic ed by :8 (A ) ev ide nt par

ti ali ty b y an arb it ra to r ap p o in te d as a n eutral ar bit ra tor ; (B) corruptio n in an a rbitrator; or (C ) mis condu ct or

w il ful mi sbeha v ior

of an ar bit ra tor ; (3 ) the ar bit ra tors: (A ) ex ceede d the ir

pow ers; ( B ) re fused t o p o s t p o n e t h e h e a r i n g a ft e r a s h o w i n g o f s u ffi c ien t caus e for the p ost ponement; (C) ref used to hea r ev iden ce ma terial to th e con troversy ; or ( D ) condu cte d the hear ing , con tr a ry to Se ct io n 171.043 , 171.044 , 171 .045, 171. 046, or 171. 047, in a manner that subst ant ially

prejudice d the rig hts of a party; or (4) the re w as n o a gr e e m e n tt o arbitrate , the issue w as no t adversely det ermin ed in a p roce e d in g und er Sub chap ter B, an d the party did not par

ti ci pate in the a rb it ra ti on hear ing w it hout ra is ing the obj ect ion

. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 171 .08 8(a) (Vernon 2 0 05). “Th ese ground s ref lect severe depa rt u re s f ro m an oth erw ise prope r arbitration p rocess an d are of a com plete ly different charact e r than ordin ar y l eg al er ro r. ” Centex/V esta l v. Fr

iendship W

. Bap tist Ch urch , 314 S.W .3d 6 77, 6 84 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2010, no pet .) ( q uoti ng Q u inn v. Nafta Tr ader s, Inc ., 257 S. W .3d 7 95, 7 98 ( T e x . Ap p.–D all as 2008, pet. g ra nted) ). The groun ds for mo dif

y ing or correcting an aw ard are set out in section 171 .09 1 (a), wh ich sta tes : On ap pli cat ion , t he c our t s hal l modify

or co rrectan a w ard i f: (1 ) the a w ard c ontai ns: (A) an e v iden t miscalcu lation of num bers; or9 (B ) an ev ide nt mis tak e in the desc ri pti o n of a p e rso n , thing , or proper ty referred to i n the aw ard; (2 ) th e a rb it ra to rs h av e made a n award w it h respect t o a matter not submitte d to them and the aw ard may be c or re cte d w it hout affect ing the meri ts of

t h e dec is ion made w it h respect t o the i ss ues tha t w ere sub mitt ed; or ( 3 ) th e fo r m o f t h e a w a rd i s i mp e r fe ct i n a manne r not a ff ect ing the m e ri t s o f t h e co n t ro ve rs y. T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 171.091 (a ) (V er non 200 5)

.

IV. T H E A RBI TR A TO R ’ S A UT HORI TY OV E R V OI D O R D ERS

A ND A WA RD O B TA I N ED B Y U N D U E M E A NS I n t h e i r fi rs ti s s u e , a p p e l l a n t s c l a i m t h a tt h e a r b i t ra t i o n a w a rd i s t h e p ro d u ct o f a ser ies of tr ial co ur

t orders t hat a re v oid bec ause the t rial co u rtfail ed to co mply w it h the noti ce and hea ri ng req uirements i n se ction 875( e) of the Tex as Probate Cod e. See T EX . P ROB . C OD E A NN . § 875( e) (V er non Supp. 2009)

. Acc ordin g to appel lan ts , the ar bit ra ti on award s houl d be v acat ed bec ause th e a rb itra tor ex ceede d hi s p ow ers a nd the a ward w as obtai ned by undue means. SeeT EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 171 .08 8(a)(1), (a)(3 )(a). In two sub-issues, ap pellan ts cont end that : (1) the aw ard shoul d be v acat ed bec ause the a rb it ra tor had no aut hor ity

to deci de i ss ues submi tted by a v oid co urt order

ar is ing out of a settl ement ag re em e n t th at i s t he productof other v oid co urt orders; and ( 2) the a ward sh oul d be v acat ed bec ause itw as obtai ned by undue mean s. Appel lan ts’ arg ument t hat t he ar bit ra ti on award w as obt a in e d by“ undue means’ ” is merely

an a rg ument t hat it w as obtai ned as a resul t of “ the c oerci v e power of a cou rt lacking jurisdiction. ”C ur r ent l y pen di ng b ef or e t he Cour t i s app el l ees’ “ M ot i on t o T ake Judi ci al N ot i ce, ” bywhi ch ap pel l ees 3 r equestt hat t hi s C our t t ake j udi ci al not i ce oft he br i ef s t hatw er e f i l ed i n t he T exas Supr em e Cour t i n cau se num ber09- 0441. T he Cour t re cei v ed and r ev i ewed t he r esponse t o t hi s m ot i on t hat w as f i l ed by app el l ant s. G i v e n th e c u rr e n t p o s tu re o f th i s c a s e , w e d i s m i s s a p p e l l e e s ’ m o ti o n a s m o o t. 10 A p p e ll e e s co n t e n d , in co n t ra s t , t h a t : (1 ) t h e t r i a l c o u rta n d t h is Co u rth a ve already determi ned and reje cte d appel lan ts’ j ur is dicti onal arg uments ; ( 2) furt her rev iew of this ma tter is blocked bylaw of the case and /or judicial esto ppe l; and (3) the parties’ settle me nt agreem entrequires tha t certain issue s be arbitrat ed wi tho ut ap pea l. In c ause n umber

13- 08- 00682- CV , app ell ant h erein , C onsue lo Vi ll ar re al Can tu, argued th at th e trial court failed t o s a tisf y “the ma nda tory and jurisdictional no tice requireme nts of the T exas Proba te C ode ” beca use it held an initial gu a rd ia n ship hear ing and appoi nted a temporar y guardi an “ w it hout g iv ing the propose d w ard pr ior no ti c e as req ui red by s ecti on 87 5 of th e Texas Prob ate Code. ” In re Can tu , N o. 13-0 8-00 682 -CV, 200 9 T ex. App. LE XIS 2241 , at*1-2 (Te x . App .–Corp us Christi Apr. 2, 20 09, o ri g . proceed ing [mand. deni ed]) ( mem. op.) ; see g ene rally T EX . P ROB . C ODE 3 A NN . § 875. C onsue lo thus co ntended thatthe tr ial co urt’ s juri sdi cti on ov er D oña R aq ue l w as n ev er

p rop er l y

i nv ok ed , an d c on s eq ue nt l y , al l o rde rs i n th e g uardiansh ip proceed ing w ere v oid

. See In r e C antu , 200 9 Tex. A p p . L EX IS 2 241, at * 1- 2. The Cou rtreq uest ed and re cei v ed a re sponse to C onsue lo’ s p eti ti on for w ri t of mandamus from the re al par

ti es in int erest , and furth er rece iv ed a re ply

thereto from the re lat or . Id. Aft e r d u e c o n s i d e ra t i o n , w e c o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e t r i a l c o u rth a d a c q u i re d j u r i s d i ct i o n o v er Doña Raquel at the time it signed th e orde r appo inting Raquel as her tem pora ry g uardia n, an d the re fore t he order appoi nti ng R aq uel as tempora ryg uardia n, an d subs eq uent orders i n tha t matt er , were notv oid

. See i d. at * 8- 10.11

A j udg ment or

order i s void w hen i t i s a pparent t hat t he c our t ren d e rin g it l ack ed jur is dicti o n of ei ther

the par ti es or the subj ectmatte r of the l awsui t. See In re Mask , 198 S. W .3d 2 31, 2 35 ( Tex . Ap p.–San Ant oni o 2006, or ig . proceed ing ); In r e Bok elo h , 21 S. W .3d 7 84, 7 94 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2000, or ig . proceed ing ). For a tr ial cour t t o hav e j ur is dicti on ov er a p a rty , t he par

ty mustbe p ro per ly

before the c our

t i n the pendi ng cont ro v ersy as author iz ed by procedu ra l sta tutes and ru les

. Pe rry v. Ponder

, 604 S.W .2d 306 , 322 (Tex. Civ . App .–Dallas 1 980 , no wr it). Generally, a tria l co urt does not h av e j ur is dicti on to ente r a judg ment or order ag ain st a respon dent unl ess the re cord s hows p ro per

se rv ice of

ci tati on on the respon dent, or an a ppearance by

the re spond ent, or

a w ri tten memorand um of w aiv er at th e t im e the jud g ment or order w as entered. T EX . R. C IV . P. 1 24; W e rn er v. Colwe ll , 909 S.W .2d 866 , 869 -70 (Te x . 199 5); Autozone, Inc . v

. D uenes , 108 S.W .3d 9 17, 9 20 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2 0 0 3 , no pet.)

. If a tr ial co u rtente rs a j udg ment before i t ac q uires jur is dicti on of the par ti es, the jud g ment i s void

. Inr e Mask , 198 S.W .3d a t 235 ; In r e B. A.G. , 794 S.W .2d 5 10, 5 1 1 -1 2 (T e x. Ap p .– Co rp u s Ch ris ti 19 9 0 , n o w rit ) (ci ti n g Brow ningv. Placke , 698 S.W .2d 362 , 363 (Tex. 1985 )). In ou r prev iou s o pin ion , we c onsi dered th at t he record before u s showed th at: (1 ) the t r i a l c o u rt s e n t n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g b y fa c s i mi l e t o a n a tt o r n e y w h o a p p e a re d at the h ear ing on b ehal f of D oña R aq uel’s M e xica n c ounse l; ( 2) D oña R aq uel ’s att or ney ad l it em, w ho had met w it h her pr io r to t h e hear ing , app eared atthe hear ing on h er behal f; (3)D oña R aq uel w as presentfor s ome, i f not al l, of the p ro ceedi ng s a ttend ant t o the h ear ing ; ( 4) D oña R aq uel w as personal ly se rv ed w it h the applicat ion for12

g uardia nshi p s hor

tl y after the hear ing beg an; a nd (5 ) th e t ri al cour t’ s first order appoi nti ng R aq uel as temporar y gu a rd ia n w as not e ntered unt il after D oña R aq uel w as personal ly

s er v ed w it h the appl ic ati on. In r e C antu , 200 9 Tex . Ap p. LE X IS 2 241, at *8- 10. W e thu s c o n cl uded t hat t he tr ial co urt had ac q uired j ur is dicti on ov er D oña Raq uel at the t ime itsi g ned t he order appoi nti ng R aq uel as h er temporar

y g uardia n, a n d t h a t t h e o rd e rs e n t e re d i n t h e g u a rd i a n s h i p p ro c e e d i n g w e re n ot v oid

. Id. at *10 (ci ti n g In r

e B. A.G. , 7 9 4 S.W .2d a t 511 -1 2; Or ti z v. Gut ier re z , 792 S.W .2d 1 18, 1 19 (Te x . App .–S an An ton io 1 989 , w rit denied ) ( hold ing that the person al serv ice re q uirement un der

the former

g uardia nshi p s tatut e w as jur is d ict io nal , and therefore, the tr ial co urt proper ly

di smi ss ed a g uardia nshi p proce e d ing w hen t he propose d w ard had notbee n pe rsona lly

serv ed)). Und er the “l aw

of the c ase” doctr ine , q uest ion s o f law dec id e d on appeal to a court of last resort w ill gov ern the case thro ughou t it s subse quent sta ges. Lor amM ain t. of Way, Inc. v. Iann i , 2 1 0 S. W .3 d 59 3 , 5 9 6 (T e x. 20 0 6 ) (ci ti n g Hudso n v. W akef ield , 711 S.W .2d 6 28, 6 3 0 (Tex . 198 6) ). By nar ro w ing the is sues i n s ucc ess iv e s tag es of the li ti g ati on, the doct ri ne is int ended to achi ev e uni formity of de ci si on as well a s ju dic ial econo myand eff ic ien cy . Briscoe v. Goo dm ark Corp

. , 1 0 2 S

. W

. 3 d 7 1 4 , 7 1 6 (T e x. 2003)

. A p p e l l a n t s ’ fi rs ti s s u e i n t h i s a p p e a l , i n w h i c h t h e y c o n t e n d t h a tt h e a r b i t rati on aw ard s houl d be v acat ed bec ause iti s t he productof a s er ies of tr ial co urt ord ers t hat are v o id and thus the ar bit ra tor ex ceede d hi s p ow ers o r the a w ard w as obtai ned by und u e m e a n s, has al re ady been address ed by

thi s C our

t. See In r

e C antu , 2 0 0 9 T e x. App

. LE X IS 2 24 1, a t * 8- 10

. W e ha v e be en p res en te d w i th n o ne w o r a dd i ti on al facts,W e f ur t hernot e t hat sect i on 1 71. 090 oft he T exas Ar bi t r at i on Act speci f i cal l y pr ov i des t hat “ [ t ] he f act 4 th a t t h e re l i e f g ra n te d b y th e a rb i tra to rs c o u l d n o t o r w o u l d n o t b e g ra n te d b y a c o u rt o f l a w o r e q u i ty i s n o t a gro un d fo r vac ati ng or r efu s i ng t o c on fi rm t he aw ard

. ” See T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 171. 090 (V ern on 20 05 ). 13 le ga l a n a lys is , o r a rg u m e n tt h a two u ld ch a n ge t h e d is p o s it io n o f t h is is s u e . Ac c o rd in gl y, the l aw of the c ase doct rin e p re cl udes us from recons ide ri ng thes e i ss ues. See Br is coe , 102 S.W .3d a t 716

. W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ first is sue. 4 V. A RBI TR A TO R ’ S A UT HORI TY T O E N FOR C E C ON TR A C TS P R OH I B I TED BY L AW

OR I S S UE A N A

WA RD THA T V I OLA TES P UBL I C P OL I CY In th eir second issue, ap pellan ts argue tha t, alth ough an arbitrato r’s p o w ers are defined b y

co ntract , an ar bit ra tor

has no a uthor it y t o enforce cont ra ctu al prov is ion s t hat are proh ibited bylaw

or to issue an aw ard tha t v iolate s pub lic policy. I n tw o sub -issues, appel lan ts cont end that: (1 ) the aw ard shoul d be v acat ed becau se the arbi trator e xc e e d e d h is a u t h o ri ty b y e n fo rc in g c o n t ra ct u a l p ro vis io n s t h a t a re p ro h ib it e d b yl a w; and ( 2) the aw ard s houl d be v acat ed bec ause th e a rb it ra tor ex ceede d hi s a uthor ity by is sui ng an a w ard tha t v io la te s publi c p oli cy . Spec ific all y , app ell ants co ntend that the se tt le m e n t ag re ement req uired th e par ti es to di v ide as set s t hat t hey di d notow n and w hich inste ad b elon ged to the ir moth er or a sepa rate com pan y , San Pedro Imp ulsora De Inm ueb les Espe ciales S.A . de C.V. (“ Sa n P e d ro I mp ulsora”). Appe llants also cont end t hatt h e a rb it ra ti on award v iol ates publ icpol icy bec ause itreq uires the p arti es notto act in the best inte rests o f t h e irm o t h er insofar as it prev ent s their mo the r’s retu rn to M ex ic o unt il co ndi ti ons precede nt are met. I n c ontrast , a p p e llees cl aim that appel lan ts w aiv ed th eir i ll eg ali ty and publ icpol icy obj ect ion s t o the ar bit ra ti on award by14

not rais ing them dur ing the ar bit ra ti on hear ing a n d by fail ing to furni sh a record of the a rb it ra ti o n pro ce e d in g. As an i nit ial matte r, w e not e tha t appel lan ts’ se cond is sue is phrased in ter ms of both sta tutor

y g ro unds for v acat ur , i nsofar as theyco ntend that the a rb it ra tor ex ceede d his powers, and com mo n law g roun ds, ins ofar as the y inv oke illegality

and pub lic policy g ro unds for v acat ing the aw ard. In 20 08, t he U nit ed St ates Supreme C our t hel d tha t the Fe d e ra l Ar bit ra ti on Act’ s s tatut or y g ro unds for v acat ing an a rb it ra ti on award are the ex cl usi v e means to v acat e an aw ard, t hus forecl osi ng any co n tract ual g ro und for v acat ur of an ar bitra tion award. Hall St. Asso cs., L.L .C. v. Mattel, In c. , 552 U .S. 576, 582 ( 2008)

. In render ing thi s d eci si on, t he s upr e m e c o u rt“ pla ced in doubt the cont inu ed v ali dity

of common l a w g ro unds for v acat ur . . . prev iou sl y

recog niz ed by T e xa s s t a t e and fede ral courts.” Townes T ele com m s., Inc . v

. T ra vi s, W olf f & Co. , 291 S.W .3d 4 90, 4 93 ( Tex . Ap p.–D a lla s 2 0 0 9, pe t. deni ed) ( findi ng i t unn eces sar y to add ress com mo n law

g ro u n ds for v acat ur beca use a ppe llants ha d sho w n a stat uto ry groun d for v acat ur of

an arbitrat ion award). In de ci si ons re ndered pr ior to Hall , t he Tex as Suprem e C o u rtas sumed, w it hout deci din g , t hat c ommon l aw g ro unds for v acat ing an a w ard had not b een preempted by sta tute. See C VN

Gr oup , 95 S. W .3d at 238 (di s c u s s in g illegality and pub lic policy g ro unds for v acat ur

and noti ng that the par ti es had notaddress ed w hether co mmon la w g ro unds for v acat ur

had been preempted by st atute s g ov er nin g arbitrati on) ; Cal lah an & Assocs. v. Orange field In dep . Sch. Dist

. , 9 2 S

. W

. 3 d 8 4 1 , 8 4 4 (T e x. 2 0 0 2 ) ( “S im il a rl y, ass uming w it hout deci din g that[appell ee] mayrely on t he g ro ss mis tak e s tandard underT he com m on l aw and t he T exas G ener al A r bi t r at i on Act coexi st as a du al sy st em of ar bi t r at i on, and 5 th e T A A i s “c u m u l a ti v e ” o f th e c o m m o n l a w . L. H

. Lacy C o. v. C i t y of Lub bock , 559 S. W

. 2d 348, 351 ( T ex. 1 9 7 7 ); C ol

lins v . Te x Mal

l, L

. P. , 29 7 S

. W

. 3d 40 9, 41 5 (T ex . A pp . –F ort W ort h 2 00 9, no pe t

. ).

15 the c ommon l aw

to attac k t he ar bit ra tor ’s aw ard, a n a rb it rator does not v iol ate t he co m m o n la w sim p ly by fa ili n g to award da m a ge s. ”). Fol lo wing Hall , s ev eral int er mediat e a p p e lla te co urts hav e l imi ted rev iew of an ar bit ra ti on award under the Fede ra l Ar bit ra ti on Act t o s tatut or y g ro unds. See, e .g ., A ll sty le Coi l Co. , v . C ar re on , 2 9 5 S

. W

. 3 d 4 2 , 4 4 ( Te x . A p p . – H o u s t o n [ 1 s t D i s t

. ] M a y 7 , 2 0 0 9 , no p et.) ; Anco r Holdin gs, LLC

v. Peter

son, Goldm a n, &Vi

ll ani , Inc . , 2 9 4 S

. W

. 3 d 8 1 8 , 8 2 8 (T e x. App.–D all as 2009, no pet .) ; Foga l , 294 S.W .3d a t 720 ; see als o Pet ro leumAnal

yzer Co. LP v. Olsto wski , No

. 0 1 -0 9 -0 0 0 7 6 -C V , 2 0 1 0 T e x. A p p . L E XI S 5 5 8 1 , a t*3 2 -3 3 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] J uly 15, 2010, no pet .) ( mem. op.) ; Lefou mba v. Legend Cl assic Hom es, Ltd. , No

. 1 4 -0 8 -0 0 2 4 3 -C V , 2 0 0 9 T e x. A p p . L E X I S 7 5 7 3 , a t*5 -6 (T e x. App.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] Sept . 17, 2009, n o p e t.) ( mem. op.) ; Cha ndler v. F or d Motor Cr edit C o. , No. 04- 08- 00100- CV , 2009 Tex

. App. LEX IS 1587, at *8- 10 (Te x. Ap p.–San Ant o n i o M a r . 4 , 2 0 0 9 , n o p e t

. ) ( me m. o p . )

. S o me c o u rt s , re l y i n g o n t h e p ar all el structu res of

the Fed eral Arbitratio n Act an d the Te x as Arbitratio n Act, h ave li kewi se hel d tha t t he Tex as Ar bit ra ti on Act’ s s tatut or y prov is ion s for v acat ing an a rb it ra ti on aw ard are ex cl usi v e, t hus forecl osi ng the appl ic ati on of common law g ro unds for v acat ur . See A ge In dus. v. Edwar ds , 318 S.W .3d 4 61, 4 6 3 ( T e x. App.–El Paso 2010, pet. dis m’d) ; Q u i

nn , 257 S. W .3d a t 799

. I n c ontrast , s ome Tex as cour ts cont inu e to 5 a p p l y s t a t u t o r

y a n d c o mm o n l a w g ro u n d s fo r v a c a t i n g a n aw ard. See, e.g., Graha m -Rutledg e & Co

. v. Na dia Corp ., 281 S. W .3d 6 83, 6 88 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2009,16

no pet .) ( re v iew ing st atuto ry g ro unds for v acat ing an a w ard and st a ti n g t hat Tex as com mo n law

also provides thata bindin g arbitratio n award may be set aside if it is taint ed wi th “f raud , miscon duct , or such gross mistake a s wo u ld im ply bad faith, or a failu re to ex erci se hones t j udg ment” ). The par ti es to t his appeal hav e notaddress ed th e c onti nued v iab il ity of common law g ro u nds for v acat ur

of an ar bit ra ti on award under the Tex as Ar bit ra ti on Act, and appel lan ts’ i ss ues are os tens ibl y c o u ched in st atuto ry

ter ms for v acat ur . Mo re ov er , t he appl ic abi li ty , or

l a ckt h e re of, of the c ommon l aw doctr ine s for

v acat ur

i s n ot deter minat iv e of thi s a ppeal

. See gen erally T EX . R. A PP . P

. 4 7

. 1 , 4 7

. 4

. T h u s , we a d d re s s a p p e ll a n t s ’ se c o n d is s u e , t h a t is , wh e t h e r th e a rb it ra t o r exc e e d e d h i s a u t h o ri ty, w ithou t decid ing w het her the comm on law doctrines referen ced th erein re m ain appl ic abl e. T he a uth orityof

an arbitra t o r is d eriv ed f rom th e arbitrat ion agreem entand is limited to a de cision o f t h e m a tters sub mitt ed th erein eith er expressly or by nece ssary i mp l i c a t i o n. G ulf Oil Corp. v. Guidry, 160 Te x . 139 , 327 S.W .2d 406 , 408 (Tex. 1959 ); Al ls tyle C oil

C o. , 295 S.W .3d a t 44 ( sta ti ng sc ope of auth or ity depend s o n the agreem ent ). An arbitrato r ex ceed s his powers w hen he de cide s m a t t e rs n ot prop erly before h im. Anco r Holdings, LL C v. Peterson , G o ldm an, & Villani, Inc. , 294 S.W .3d 818, 829 ( Tex . A p p .– Da llas 2009, no p et.) ; Bar snes s v . Sc ott , 126 S.W .3d 2 32, 2 41 (Tex . Ap p.–San An to n io 2003, pet. deni ed)

. W hen det er mini ng w hether an a rb it ra tor has e x ceed ed h is pow er, a n y dou bts con cerning the sco pe o f w hatis arbitrable sho uld be resol v ed i n fav or

of ar bit ra ti on. S e e M

y e r v . A m e r ic o L i f e , Inc ., 2 32 S. W .3d 4 01, 4 0817

(Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2007, no pet .)

. It is onl y w hen t he ar bit ra tor

depar ts from the ag re ement an d, i n effect , di spens es his ow n i dea of j ust ic e tha t th e a ward may be unenforc eabl e. Cen tex /Ves tal , 314 S.W .3d a t 684

. In th e insta nt case the arb itrator’s aut hority deriv es f rom th e “Irrev ocab le Fam ily Set tlem entAgreem ent , Assignme nt, a nd Rel e a s e an d Rule 11 Agreem ent .” This agreem entw as en t e red to se ttle “the v arious claim s, cont rov ersies, an d dispu tes” among the par

ti es “rela ti ng di re ctl y

or i ndi re ctl y

to the t ra nsfer and gifti n g of proper ty of [D oña R aq uel ] and /or Ig naci o Vi ll ar re al Vi ll ar re al, the care and suppo rtof [D oña Raq uel ], and al l other

cl aims , c ontrov ersi es, and dis putes , c iv il and cr imi nal , betw een the p arti es . . . .” The ag re ement s tates that“ [a]l l par ti es ag re e tha t t he es tate of [Doñ a Raq ue l ] c o n s i s t s o f t h e 3 4 mi l l i o n p e s o s . . . a n d w h a t e v e r mo n e y t h a t i s i n the temporar

y g uardia n o f the es tate’ s a cc ounts i n the U nit ed St ates .” The ag re ement defines the proper

ti es that “b elo ng to the s ev en c hil d re n o f [ Doñ a R aq uel ]” and direct s that the p ro per

ti es “s hal l be pl aced int o hot chpot ch and di str ibu ted a mong and betw een the s ev en c hil dren of [D oña R aq uel ].” The ho tch potc h i s e x pre ss ly d e f in ed i n the ag re ement t o i ncl ude “ all sh ares” and “an y and all as set s” of San P edro Impul sora. The ag re ement further

repeated ly

referenc e s th e g uardia nshi p for Doñ a R aq uel and inc lud es prov is ion s for

her ca re . As prev iou sl y

di sc uss ed, t his doc ument p rov ide s t hat ar bit ra tor sh all ar bit ra te “ any

di spu te reg ardin g the int er pretati on and impl ementati on of thi s Ag re em e n t” i ncl udi ng “ the mann er i n w hic h the [h] otc hpotc h i s t o be dis tr ibu ted t o the sev en ch ildren of

[Doña Raquel].”I n o ur eva l ua t i on of ap pe l l an t s ’ argu m en t s rega rdi ng t he s c op e of t he a rbi t rat or’ s a utho ri t y , w e a re 6 m i ndf ul of

ot he r c ou rt s ’ caut i ons a gai nst a par t y ’ s “ use o ft he a ut hor i t y ar gum ent as a r use t o i nduce t he r ev i ewi ng co ur t t o r edet er m i ne t he f act s— ev en j ust a t i nybi t
— orre ach a l egal concl usi on o n t hem as f ound or ho pe d fo r wh i c h di ffers f rom t ha t of t he arbi t rat ors . ” C ent ex/Vest al v. Fr iendshi p W

. Baptist

C hurch , 314 S. W

. 3d 6 77, 684 ( T ex. App. –D al l as 20 10, no pet

. ) ( quot i ng I sland on L ake Tr avis, Lt d. v. H aym an Co. G en. C on trac t ors , 83 4 S

. W

. 2d 52 9, 53 3 (T ex . A pp . –A us t i n 1 99 2, w ri t gran t ed , j ud gm ’ t vac ated w . r. m . ))

. 18 Beca use of the breadth of the ar bit ra ti on ag re ement, w e c oncl ude t hat t he ar bit ra tor w as author iz ed to dete rmi ne th at t he proper ty r ig hts at is sue herein arose out of or w ere rela ted t o the ag re emen t or i nv olv ed a common q uest ion of law or fact. Se e Ce ntex /Ves tal , 314 S.W .3d a t 685 ; Hisaw & Asso c. Gen . Contractors, Inc. , 1 1 5 S.W .3d at 16

. In s hor

t, the a g re ement at iss ue g av e the ar bit ra tor , ei ther ex press ly

or by neces sar

y i m p lic ati on, t he aut hor ity to deci de matt ers p ertai nin g to Doñ a R aq uel and San P edro Impul sora. 6 Appel lan ts further

co ntend that the a ward is i ll eg al becau se the a rb it ra tor had no aut hority to issue an award distributing asset s ow ned byDoña Raquel an d San Pedro Impul sora bec ause appel lee s d o nothav e any j ust ici a b le in teresti n, or the leg al capac ity to sue to recov er , anyasset in Doñ a R aq uel ’s es tate or any as setbel ong ing to a thi rd par

ty su ch as San P edro Impul sora. As a thresh o ld m atter , w hen a non- prev ail ing par ty se eks to v acat e an ar bit ra ti on aw ard, it bears the burden in the tr ial cour t of br ing ing forth a compl ete re co rd th at est abl is hes it s b asi s for v acat ing the aw ard. Ch e stnu t Ene rgy Partne rs , 300 S.W .3d a t 401; State wide Rem o de ling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d a t 568

. W hen t here i s n o transc ri pt of the a rb it ra ti on hear ing , as here, t he appe ll ate c our t w il l presume the e v ide nce w as adeq uate to s uppor

t t he award. Chestn ut Ene rgy Partne rs , 300 S.W .3d a t 401 ; Sta tew ide Remodeling, Inc. , 244 S.W .3d at 568 . Th e ap plication of t h is g e n eral rule19

merel y l imi ts rather

than forec los es our co nsi derati on of w hether the ar bit ra tor ex ceede d hi s a uthor ity i n thi s i nst ance. Cen tex /Ves tal , 314 S. W .3d a t 685 ; see, e.g. , Grand Hom es 96, L.P. v. Louderm ilk, 208 S.W .3d 6 96, 7 06 ( Tex . A p p .– Fo rtW orth 2006, pet. deni ed) ( noti ng thatth e re w as no record of the ar bit ra ti on proceed ing but consid e ri n g p lead ings and agreem entin conclud ing arbitrator did no t exceed his aut hority). Th erefore, we consider the parties’ agreem entand the m atte rs subm itted in a rb it ra t io n t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r t h e a rb it ra t o r e xc e e d e d h is p o we r. In so d o in g, we presume any

remaini ng ev ide nce suppo rt s t he award. See C entex /Ves tal , 314 S. W .3d at 68 5. Beca use w e do not h av e a record of the proceed ing s b y

w hic h to cons ide r appel lan ts’ co mplai nts and w e pre su m e tha t t he ev ide nce w as adeq uate to s uppor t t he ar bit ra tor ’s aw ard, see Sta tewide R em odel ing, Inc ., 244 S. W .3d a t 568 , we hav e no ev ide nce before us to show that the proper

ty div ide d byagreement w as act ual ly hel d by Doña Raquel a nd San P edro I mp ulsora. W e f urthe r no te th at th e arbitrat or state d in his aw ard tha t t here w as “s ubst anti al ev ide nce” present ed i n the ex hib it s a nd atthe a rb it ra t ion he aring that ap pellan ts cont rol San Pe dro Im pulso ra. Accordingly , w e reject appel lan ts’ fundamental prem ise und er ly ing thi s i ss ue i nsofar as i t dep ends on facts w hich are u nsup porte d by the record be fore us. Mo re ov er , appel lan ts’ sug g est ion that the ar bit ra tor lac ked author ity to di vide thei r mother ’s es tate is su ppor ted b y ci tati on to one cas e, Pi ke v. Cr osby, 472 S.W .2d 588 ( Tex . C iv

. App.–E ast lan d 1971, no w ri t)

. Theyco ntend that thi s c ase sta nds for th e20

proposi ti on th at he irs h av e no jus ti ci abl e i nteresti n a d ecede nt’ s a ss ets or the leg al capac ity to sue to c ancel the deced ent’ s c onv ey ance of her ass ets to a tr ust ee. In Pike , Ora Bad ge r c o n ve ye d a ll o f h er prop erty to Geo rg e Pike throu gh a trust conv ey ance, w it h the proper ty to be hel d i n tr ustfor B adg er ’s benefitdur in g her l ifeti me, and w it h ti tl e to v esti n Pi ke at B adg er ’s deat h. Id. at5 8 8

. After her deat h, he r three heirs at law a n d a p ri n c ip al devisee und er her w ill brou ght suit to can cel the trust c o n v e y a nce. Id. The t ri al cour t g ra nted a temporar

y i nju nct ion ag ain st Pi ke re strain ing him from di spos ing of any of Badg er ’s es ta te pendin g final tr ial on t he mer it s. Id. at 58 8- 89

. Th e c ou rt de te r mi ne d th att he d ev i s ee u nd er B ad g er ’ s w i l l h ad n o j us ti c i able int erestor

ca paci ty

to eit her

br ing or

mai ntai n the s u itfo r canc ell ati on of the conv ey ance becau se Badg er ’s w il l w as unprobated and t hus, the dev is ee c oul d not demo n st rate an int eresti n the proper ty i n q uest ion

. Id. at 589- 90. The cour t furt her ruled th at th e de cede nt’s he irs at law lacked a just iciable i nte rest in the prop erty and did not h av e l eg al capac ity to maint a in t h e s u itbec ause they co uld not all eg e, as req uired b y co m m o n l aw , t hat t here w as no admi nis trati on of Badg er ’s es tate pendi ng , no neces si ty

for a dmini strati on, a nd no w il l left by the deced ent. Id. at 59 0 -9 1

. T h e court hel d tha t, absen t a ri g ht t o mai ntai n the under ly ing acti on, a ppel lee s w ere notenti tl ed to the t emporar

y i nju nct ion

. Id. at 591. Pike does not cont ro l our anal y si s of

t h e i ss ue. This ca se conc er ns the e sta te of a w ard under

g uardia nshi p w here the as set s o f the esta te we re identi fied and div ide d by ag re ement by t h e s e ven chil dren of the ward. In t his reg ard, we not e tha t app ell ants do not arg ue that impos it ion of a g uardia nshi p for Doñ a R aq uel w as er ro r. M oreov er , t o21

the e xtent that appel lan ts’ co ntent ion s rely on t h e f a ct ual al leg ati ons that any proper ty at i ss ue i n the ag re ement be lon ged t o D o ña R aq uel or San Pedro Impul sora, as st ated prev iou sl y , we not e tha t t here i s n o ev ide nce in the record s uppor ti ng thes e al leg ati ons. Appel lan ts further

arg ue th at t he ar bit ra to r e xceeded h is auth or ity i n i ss uin g an award that vi olate s pub lic policy beca u se it requires appe llants no t to act in th e be st intere st of

their mo the r. App ellant s pointout th at th ey lack the abilityto det ermin e the ir mothers’ resi dence a n d s ta te that , und er the ter ms of the aw ard, D oña R aq uel ca nnot be retur ned t o her

home i n M ex ic o unt il appel lan ts compl y w it h the ter ms of the aw ard. “[A]n ar bit ra ti on award c annot be s et as ide on p ubl icpoli cy g ro unds ex cepti n an extraordin ar

y ca se in w hic h the aw ard c lea rl y v iol ates ca re fully

ar ti cula ted, fundamental policy.” CV

N Gr oup , 95 S

. W

. 3 d at 23 9. “[A]n y claimed v iolation of

such pu blic policy must be c arefull y

sc ru ti niz ed to protect th e a rb it ra ti on award from un w ar ra nted jud ic ial i nt er feren c e. ” Id. Althou gh public policy consid eratio ns ma y und erlie the p aren t-child re lat ion shi p, pa rt ic ula rlywhere the parent i s u nder g uardia nshi p, we c oncl ude t hat t he arbitratio n award in this case did no t in any way imp ugn tha t relation ship. Ap pellan ts’ c o n t e n t i o n s a re g e n e ra l l y b e l i e d b y t h e t e r ms o f t h e a g re e me n t a n d aw ard. The ag re ement c ontai ns speci f ic and detai led prov is ion s reg ardin g the care, c ust ody , and cont ro l of Doña Raq uel a n d a tt e m pts to ensure tha t al l of her chi ldren hav e ac ces s t o her. Moreover, as st ate d, all partie s sig ned the agreem ent . Th e award canno t be said to “clearly ” v iolate “care f u ll y articulate d, f und am ent al policy.” See i d. Ac c o rd in gl y, we ov er ru le appel lan ts’ se cond is sue.22 VI. C OND UCT OF A RBI TR A TI ON H E A RI NG In t hei r thi rd i ss ue, a ppel lan ts ass ert t hat t he ar bitra ti o n award mustbe v acat ed becau se the a rb it ra tor refused to pos tpone the a rb it ra ti on hear ing after a s how ing of suf f icient cau se an d, acco rdingly , cond ucte d the hea ring in a ma nne r that su b s t a n t ia lly prejud iced ap pellan ts’ rig hts. Sta ted othe rw ise, ap pellan ts c o nte nd th at th e award shoul d be v acat e d bec ause the a rb it ra tor refused to pos tpone the a rb it ra ti on hear ing even tho ugh app ellant s could no t app ear. S pecif ically , app ellant s assert tha t the y w ere u n a b l e t o at te n d th e arb it ra ti o n he a rin g be ca u se th e tri a l co u rt ’s o rd e r gra n ti n g a temporar

y i nju nct ion , and a rela ted o rd er enforc ing the tempo ra ry i nju nct ion and is sui ng w ri ts of attac hment, w ere under appeal

. “B ecaus e the w rits of att achmenthad is sued, [appel lan ts] w ere under threat o f arre sta n d c oul d notente r the U nit ed St ates to part ic ipate in the arbitra tion h earing.” Appe llees, in con trast, asse rt that th is ex cuse does not c onst it ute “ suffici ent c ause” to post pone t he ar bit ra ti on. In c or re spond ence to t he arbitrator , app ell ants arg ued t hat “ [i ]mproper ly obta ine d w ri ts of attac hment precl ude any meani ng ful ar bit ra ti on and ar bitra ti o n sh oul d be cont inu ed unt il [t he] i nter loc utor y appeal i s d eci ded.” Ap pel lan ts further st ated that: As y ou a re aware, [t he t r i al c ou rt] i s s ue d w r i ts o f atta c hm en t for my client as well as his broth er Fernan do a nd Con suelo for supp osed ly v io la ti n g a t emporar

y i nju nct ion , w hic h w as g ra nted on J une 9, 2008. T hose w rits were issued on June 27, 200 8 in cont rav ent ion of [Te x as Rule of Appel lat e Procedu re ] 29. 4 because the t emporar y i nju nct ion w as on appe a l w hen t he j udg e i ss ued t hose w ri ts. As I sta ted i n my pr ior l etter of Aug ust 4, 2008 my cl ien t w il l not appear at a hear ing only to be arr est ed w hen he shows u p at y our off ic e. Fu rt her more, att empti ng to proceed w it h a h ear ing under

thes e c ircums tanc es w oul d s ubj ectany pote nti al aw ard to bei ng v acat ed under the prov is ion s of [ secti on] 171.088 of the [Tex as] C iv il P ra cti ce and R emedie s C ode. Therefore we obj ectto the hear ing and re q uestthat i t be post poned u nti l suc h ti me as the v ali dity of23

the i nju nct ion and the w ri ts of attac hment are dec ide d b y the cour

t of appeal s o r supreme co urt. T h e a rb it rati on proceed ed as sc hedul ed on Aug ust18, 2008. Appel lan ts did not appear a tt h e a r b i t ra t i o n ; h o w e v e r , t h e i r a tt o r n e y s a p p e a re d o n t h e i r b e h a l f. I n t he ar bit ra ti on a ward, the ar bit ra tor address ed appe ll ants ’ obj ect ion to the a rb it ra ti on as follows: Objection No. 1: Improperly obtained w rits of attachm e n t prec lude any mea ni ng fu l ar bi trat io n and arb it rat io n sho ul d be contin ue d un ti l in te rlo cut or

y ap peal is deci ded

. The Co urt of

Appeals and the S upreme C our t hav e deni ed any temporar

y re lief or

st ay to the [ appel lan ts]

. The “ g ro und r ule s” for t he Arb it ration perm itted the [a ppe llants] p arties to te stif y [throu gh] Af

f idavits. T h e [ a p p ell ants ] di d notav ail thems elv es of the oppo rt uni ty to present , [throug h] t h eir

Att or ney s, proposa ls , c omments, respon ses , ot her w itnesse s, Af

f idavits or Exhibits (other tha n Exhibit [Numb ers] 1, 2 & 24 ). Obj ect ion N o. 1 is ov er ru led

. As state d pr e vio u sly , und er the civi l practice an d rem edie s code , “the cou rt shall v acat e an aw a rd i f

. . . t he a rbitrator . . . ref used to post pon e the hea ring af ter a showing of

su f f icient cause for the p ostp one me nt.” T EX . C IV . P R AC . & R EM . C OD E A NN . § 171.088 (a )( 3) (B ). I n det er mini ng w hat c onst it utes a “s uff ic ien t c ause for pos tponement ” under se cti on 171. 0 8 8 (a )( 3) (B ), w e may ex amine the g ro unds a c our t woul d find s u ffi c i e n tt o s u p p o rta m o t i o n fo r c o n t i n u a n c e i n a tri al court. Hoggett v. Zi m m er m an , 63 S. W .3d 8 07, 8 11 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 2001, no p et.)

. Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 2 5 1 prov ide s t hat a moti on for cont inu ance canno t be g ra nted “e x ceptfor s uff ic ien t c ause suppo rt ed by aff ida v it , or

by co nsentof

the partie s, or byope ration of law .” T EX . R. C IV . P. 251. A p p e lla n ts hav e al leg ed th at t he ar bit ra ti o n s h o u ld hav e been cont inu ed bec ause they w ere unabl e to be present

.24

Howe v e r , a t r i a l c o u rt i s n o t re q u i re d t o g ra n t a mo t i o n fo r c o n t i n u a n c e j u st becau se a par ty i s u nabl e to be presentat tr ial

. Ng o v. N go , 1 3 3 S

. W

. 3 d 6 8 8 , 6 9 3 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no p et.) ; Br is coe v. Goodm ar

k C or p. , 130 S.W .3d 1 60, 1 69 (Tex . Ap p.–El Pas o 2003, no p et.) ; Hawth or ne v . G uenther

, 9 1 7 S

. W

. 2 d 9 2 4 , 9 2 9 ( T e x. App.–H oust on [1st Di st. ] 1996, w ri t den ied ); Hum phr ey v. Ahl schla ger , 778 S.W .2d 4 80, 483 ( Tex . Ap p.–Dal la s 1 9 89, n o w ri t) ; Br ownv . Br own , 5 9 9 S

. W

. 2 d 1 3 5 , 1 3 7 (T e x. Ci v. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1980, no w ri t)

. W hen a co n ti n u a n ce is so ug ht be caus e of the unav ail abi li ty

of a par

ty , we ex amine Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 252. Hawth or ne , 917 S.W .2d at 929 . Th is rule states: If the g ro u n d o f s u c h a p p l i c a t i o n b e t h e w a n t o f t e s t i mo n y , t h e party app ly ing therefor shall ma ke a f f idavit that such testim ony is ma terial, show ing the mater ial ity thereof, and t hat h e has us ed due d il ig ence to procu re such testimo ny, statin g such dilig ence , and the cause of fail u re , if know n; t hat s uch tes ti mony ca nnot be procured from a ny ot h er so urce; an d , i f i t b e fo r t h e a b s e n c e o f a w i t n e s s , h e s h a l l s t a t e t h e name a nd residen ce of

the wi tne ss, and w hath e e xp ects to prove by him; a nd a lso sta te t hat the cont inu ance is not soug ht for del ay onl y , butthatj ust ic e may be done ; prov ide d tha t, on a firs t app li cat ion for a co nti nuanc e, i t s hal l not be nec ess ar

y to show that the abs ent t est imony ca nnot be procured from any othe r source. T EX . R. C IV . P. 2 52; s eeD ue r r v . Br own , 262 S.W .3d 6 3, 78 -7 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [14th D is t] 2008, no pet .) ( st a ti n g tha t a mov ant for co nti nuanc e bas ed on the n eed for tes ti mony

musti denti fy the w it ness and the e v ide nce that th e t e st im ony i s e x pect ed to dem onst rate). In req u e s t i n g t h a tt h e a r b i t ra t o r c o n t i n u e t h e h e a r i n g , a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o ta rg ue that thei r p re senc e and tes ti mony at the a rb it ra ti on was mater ial , t hey made no offer ing of w hat t est imony

o r ev ide nce they

pl anned t o present , and they di d notsh ow

thatany25

suc h ev ide nce coul d n o t b e p ro cured by means othe r than thei r atten dance at ar bit ra ti on. Fur

ther , as st ated by

the ar bit ra tor , app ell ants had the o ppor tunit y to presenttes ti mony

at the a rb it ra ti on by

aff id a vits , b u t fail ed to av ail thems elv es of that oppor tuni ty

. Und er

the foreg oin g ci rc umstan ces , we c annot conc lud e tha t th e ar bit ra tor a b u s e d h i s d i s c re t i o n i n d e n y i n g a p p e l l a n t s ’ re q u e s tt o c o n t i n u e t h e a r b i t ra t i o n . W e ov er ru le appel lan ts’ thi rd i ss ue. VII. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led eac h of appella nts ’ is sues , we aff ir m the jud g ment of the tr ial cour t. NE LDA V. RO DR IGU EZ J u s t i c e Del iv ered and filed the 18th day of Nov ember , 201 0.