Court Opinion

ID: 9774104
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:08:40.850039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:01.960368
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
On Motion for Rehearing, appellant contends that he proved the existence of a prenuptial agreement between himself and his former wife, Winona Oliveira. He also contends that since he was in bankruptcy, a stay was in effect at the time of the default hearing and should have prevented the trial court from dividing the property. Appellant’s Motion for New Trial alleged that Oliveira’s cause of action was a divorce action, based upon a purported prenuptial agreement. Neither contention has any merit.
Appellant testified at the hearing on the Motion for New Trial that he married Wi-nona Oliveira on September 1, 1984. The property settlement agreement introduced into evidence at the hearing is dated January 4, 1990. Appellant testified that he entered into this agreement with Winona Oliveira on January 4, 1990. Since the parties were married in 1984, this agreement cannot he the prenuptial agreement alleged in the Motion for New Trial.
Appellant’s bankruptcy complaint was never presented to the trial court in the Motion for New Trial. It was not preserved for appellate review. Tex.R.App.P. 52(a).
*79The Motion for Rehearing is OVERRULED.