Court Opinion

ID: 9947995
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-06 07:13:04.163952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:52.779252
License: Public Domain

Affirm in part and Reverse in part and Opinion Filed March 4, 2024

                                                 In The
                                  Court of Appeals
                           Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                        No. 05-22-00563-CV

         IN THE INTEREST OF O.A.L. AND R.L., MINOR CHILDREN

                    On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court
                                 Dallas County, Texas
                         Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-11690

                            MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Nowell
                             Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III
        In this restricted appeal, Cirilo Lopez challenges the sufficiency of the

evidence to support the terms set out in the final decree of divorce. For the reasons

set out below, we reverse and remand in part and affirm in part.

                                       I.      BACKGROUND1

        Alejandrina and Cirilo Lopez were married on January 26, 2001. The parties

had two children during the marriage, O.A.L. and R.L. Alejandrina filed for divorce

from Cirilo Lopez on July 16, 2021. She served him with her amended petition for

    1
      Because Alejandrina did not file a brief controverting the facts as alleged by Cirilo, we take as true
the facts as put forth in Cirilo’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(g).
divorce on October 23, 2021. According to Cirilo, despite secretly continuing to

pursue her suit for divorce, Alejandrina assured Cirilo she was going to nonsuit the

divorce proceeding. Alejandrina told Cirilo and other family members at a

Thanksgiving dinner in November 2021 that Cirilo did not need to do anything with

regard to the divorce action because the case had been closed. The two continued to

live together during this time and Alejandrina took steps to prevent Cirilo from

receiving his mail related to the divorce proceedings. Relying on Alejandrina’s

misrepresentations, Cirilo did not file an answer or otherwise participate in the

divorce proceeding.

      Alejandrina obtained a default judgment against Cirilo, and the trial court

signed a final decree of divorce on December 28, 2021. No transcript of the default

judgment hearing was made. Cirilo did not learn about the divorce decree until

February 2022 when Alejandrina filled out Medicaid renewal forms for the

children’s health insurance and needed to disclose information regarding the court’s

order of child support. Cirilo filed a bill of review in March 2022 and a notice of

restricted appeal on June 2, 2022. In a memorandum ruling, the trial court stated:

      No notice of default judgment sent. Respondent received actual notice
      of j/t more than 20 days after it was signed. Date of notice fixed at
      March 28, 2022. Bill of Review heard as Motion for New Trial and
      granted.

      Additionally, the court finds that the evidence doesn’t support judgment
      of just and right division and default judgment entered by mistake.
      Judgment set aside.

                                        –2–
Alejandrina then filed petitions for writ of mandamus to this Court contending the

trial court abused its discretion by granting the bill of review, setting aside the

divorce decree, and ordering a new trial. She further argued that the order granting

a new trial was void and that she did not need to demonstrate inadequate remedy by

appeal. By order issued November 29, 2022, this Court conditionally granted

Alejandrina’s petitions for writ of mandamus and ordered the trial court to vacate its

June 6, 2022 order granting a new trial and setting aside the final decree of divorce.

This Court further ordered the trial court to reinstate the December 28, 2021 final

decree of divorce. 2

       This Court then permitted Cirilo to proceed with this restricted appeal by order

dated December 21, 2022. Cirilo argues in a single issue that the no-answer default

divorce decree cannot stand because there was no evidence to support the terms and

orders in the decree. Alejandrina did not file a reply brief.

                          II.    RESTRICTED APPEAL

       To prevail on a restricted appeal, an appellant must demonstrate that (1) the

notice of appeal was filed within six months of the date of the judgment or order;

(2) he was a party to the suit; (3) he did not participate in the hearing that resulted in

the judgment complained of and did not timely file a postjudgment motion or request

   2
     See In re Lopez, Nos. 05-22-00793-CV; 05-22-00794-CV, 2022 WL 17261156 (Tex. App.—Dallas
Nov. 29, 2022, no pet.).

                                            –3–
for findings of fact and conclusions of law; and (4) error is apparent on the face of

the record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 30; Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845,

848 (Tex. 2004). For purposes of a restricted appeal, the face of the record consists

of all the papers before the trial court at the time judgment was rendered; as such,

the scope of appeal is the same as with any ordinary appeal. Short v. Short, No. 05-

21-00095-CV, 2022 WL 405821, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 10, 2022, no pet.)

(mem. op.) (citing Champion v. Estlow, 456 S.W.3d 363, 364 (Tex. App.—Austin

2015, pet. denied)). But the standard of appellate review is more restrictive than with

an ordinary appeal in that the reviewing court does not draw any inferences or

presumptions from the record, but must look to the face of the record itself. Id.

      Before we can consider whether error was apparent on the face of the record,

we must determine whether the first three elements apply to this appeal. The default

divorce decree was signed by the trial court on December 28, 2021. Cirilo filed a

notice of appeal on June 2, 2022, within six months after the judgment was rendered.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.1(c). Obviously, Cirilo was a named party to the suit. Neither

Cirilo nor his lawyer were present during the default judgment hearing. Cirilo did

not file a post-judgment motion, request for proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law, or a notice of appeal from the divorce decree signed by the judge

within thirty days of its entry. See TEX. R. APP. P. 30. Accordingly, we find Cirilo

satisfies the first three requirements of a restricted appeal.

                                          –4–
                       III.   NO-EVIDENCE CHALLENGE

      In his sole issue, Cirilo argues that the error “apparent on the face of the

record” is that there was no evidence to support the terms and orders in the decree.

A.    Standard of Review

      In reviewing a no-evidence point of error, we consider only the evidence and

inferences tending to support the trial court’s finding and disregard all contrary

evidence and inferences; anything more than a scintilla of evidence is legally

sufficient to support the finding. See Wal–Mart Stores, Inc. v. Miller, 102 S.W.3d

706, 709 (Tex. 2003); Barry v. Barry, 193 S.W.3d 72, 75 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st

Dist.] 2006 no pet.) (applying standard to a restricted appeal from a default divorce

decree).

B.    Applicable Law

      As a general rule, when a defendant fails to answer, as here, no evidence is

required to support a default judgment because that failure to answer is taken as an

admission of the factual allegations in a plaintiff’s petition. See Agraz v. Carnley,

143 S.W.3d 547, 552 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, no pet.). However, in a suit for

divorce, the petition may not be taken as confessed if the respondent does not file an

answer. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 6.701. Even if a respondent in a divorce case fails

to answer or appear, the petitioner must still present evidence to support the material

allegations in the petition. Short, 2022 WL 405821, at *1 (citing Vazquez v. Vazquez,

                                         –5–
292 S.W.3d 80, 83–84 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2007, no pet)). Therefore,

a default judgment of divorce is subject to an evidentiary attack on appeal. See id.

Accordingly, Alejandrina was obligated to present evidence at trial supporting the

material allegations in her petition.

C.    Discussion

      Cirilo’s objections to the absence of evidence can be separated into three

categories: (1) conservatorship rights; (2) property division; and (3) child support

and insurance.

1. Conservatorship Rights

      Cirilo contends there is no evidence to support the conservatorship rights

granted to Alejandrina. In determining conservatorship issues, the trial court

primarily considers the best interest of the child. TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 153.002.

The trial court has wide latitude in determining best interests of the minor children.

See Gillespie v. Gillespie, 644 S.W.2d 449, 451 (Tex. 1982). Factors which may be

considered in deciding what is in the best interest of the children include: (1) desires

of the children; (2) emotional and physical needs of the children now and in the

future; (3) emotional and physical danger to the children now and in the future;

(4) parental abilities of the individuals involved; (5) programs available to those

individuals to promote the best interest of the children; (6) plans for the children by

these individuals; (7) stability of the home; (8) acts or omissions of the parent which

                                          –6–
may indicate that the existing parent-child relationship is not proper; and (9) any

excuse for the acts or omission of the parent. See Holley v. Adams, 544 S.W.2d 367,

371–72 (Tex. 1976).

      Here, there is no evidence regarding any of these factors or any other evidence

from which the trial court could determine the best interests of the children.

Alejandrina’s affidavit contains only the statement that “[t]he proposed decree of

divorce contained a parenting plan and the parenting plan is in the best interest of

the child [sic].” This statement is conclusory and is not competent to determine the

best interests of the children. See Vasquez, 292 S.W.3d at 85 (holding that mother’s

conclusory statement that the parenting plan was in the best interest of the child was

insufficient to support the divorce decree). Accordingly, we find the evidence is

insufficient to support the trial court’s determination of the specific rights of each

parent as a joint managing conservator. See id. Cirilo’s no-evidence point is

sustained as to the portions of the divorce decree relating to conservatorship rights.

2. Property Division

      Cirilo next contends the evidence is insufficient to support a just and right

property division of the marital estate. Alejandrina’s affidavit was limited to the

mere fact that the proposed final decree contained the division of property and debts,

and she thought it was just and right. She did not testify regarding the basis for her

opinion that the proposed division was just and right, and the record does not reflect

                                         –7–
any specific evidence regarding the nature or value of the property or debts.

Therefore, Alejandrina’s testimony is insufficient. See Barry, 193 S.W.3d at 75

(finding testimony insufficient where appellee only testified that she requested the

division of property as it was given, without testifying how it was a just and right

division); Wilson v. Wilson, 132 S.W.3d 533, 538 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.]

2004, no pet.) (holding that “given the dearth of evidence identifying, describing,

and valuing the community estate ... there is insufficient evidence to support the

division of the community estate”). Accordingly, we sustain Cirilo’s no-evidence

point as to the portions of the divorce decree relating to the division of marital

property.

3. Child Support and Insurance

      Cirilo contends the evidence is insufficient to support the amount of his

monthly child support obligation, or the requirement that he maintain health

insurance for the children.

      We need not consider Cirilo’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence

because based on our holding that insufficient evidence supports the division of the

marital estate, we remand the child support determination, including the health

insurance obligations, to the trial court because such a claim may be “materially

influenced” by the property division. See Wilson, 132 S.W.3d at 539 (remanding

child support determination and property division in a restricted appeal because child

                                         –8–
support determination can be “materially influenced” by the property division).

Accordingly, we sustain Cirilo’s no-evidence challenge with regard to portions of

the divorce relating to child support and insurance.

                                 IV.    CONCLUSION

      We reverse the portions of the trial court’s judgment addressing

conservatorship rights, division of the marital estate, and calculation of child support

and insurance. We affirm the judgment in all other respects, including the portion of

the judgment granting the parties a divorce. See Short, 2022 WL 405821, at *3

(affirming divorce of the parties while reversing remainder of divorce decree for

insufficient evidence).

                                            /Bill Pedersen, III//
220563f.p05                                 BILL PEDERSEN, III
                                            JUSTICE

                                          –9–
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF O.A.L.                      On Appeal from the 301st Judicial
AND R.L., MINOR CHILDREN                       District Court, Dallas County, Texas
                                               Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-11690.
No. 05-22-00563-CV                             Opinion delivered by Justice
                                               Pedersen, III. Justices Molberg and
                                               Nowell participating.

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part. We REVERSE those
portions of the trial court's judgment dealing with conservatorship, division of
marital property, and child support and insurance. In all other respects, the trial
court's judgment is AFFIRMED. We REMAND this cause to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

      It is ORDERED that appellant Cirilo Lopez recover his costs of this appeal
from appellee Alejandrina Lopez.

Judgment entered this 4th day of March, 2024.

                                        –10–