Court Opinion

ID: 9370987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-15 07:09:47.997279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:24.812222
License: Public Domain

AFFIRMED and Opinion Filed February 10, 2023

                                       S
                                       In The
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                No. 05-21-00788-CV

          IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.M. AND L.A.M., CHILDREN

               On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court
                            Dallas County, Texas
                    Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-20368

                         MEMORANDUM OPINION
                    Before Justices Reichek, Nowell, and Garcia
                             Opinion by Justice Garcia
      Penelope Flores (“Girlfriend”) filed a petition for divorce asserting an

informal marriage with Jessica Moreno (“Mother”) and requested temporary orders

concerning L.A.M. and L.A.M. (together, the “Children”). The trial court dismissed

the petition for lack of standing. In a single issue, Girlfriend now argues the trial

court erred in concluding there was no informal marriage between the parties. As

explained below, we affirm the trial court’s final order.

                                  I.   Background

      Mother and Girlfriend lived together, with a brief separation, from

approximately 2010 until 2018. In 2016, Mother became pregnant through artificial

insemination and gave birth to the Children.
      Girlfriend moved out in September 2018. In October 2019, she filed an

original petition for divorce and requested temporary orders. The original petition

alleges that Girlfriend and Mother were married in 2008, but the petition was

subsequently amended to allege that July 1, 2012 was the date of the marriage.

      An associate judge found that the parties were not married, and that Girlfriend

was not a parent of the Children. On appeal of that ruling, the District Judge found

that Girlfriend lacked standing and denied all Girlfriend’s requests.

      The District Judge signed an order of dismissal for lack of standing (the

“Initial Order”). The Initial Order denied Girlfriend’s request for temporary orders

regarding the Children and dismissed all causes of action “relating to the Children.”

Girlfriend appealed.

      We questioned our jurisdiction over the appeal because the dismissal order

was not final and appealable because it did not dispose of all issues; namely, the

divorce. Accordingly, the District Judge signed a modified dismissal order for lack

of standing ordering that Girlfriend’s causes of action relating to the Children as well

as any claims relating to the divorce were dismissed for lack of standing. Girlfriend

appeals from the final order of dismissal.

                                    II.   Analysis

      Girlfriend’s sole issue on appeal argues the trial court erred in finding there

was no informal marriage because the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to

prove that the parties were married. We disagree.

                                          –2–
      Texas law provides two ways to enter a valid marriage: through a ceremonial

marriage, or through an informal one. Hinojosa v. LaFredo, No. 05-18-01543-CV,

2021 WL 2217165, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jun. 2, 2021, pet. denied) (mem. op)

(citations omitted); see TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. §§ 2.001, 2.202, 2.401. An informal,

or common law marriage is at issue here.

      An informal marriage can be established in one of two ways. First, a party

may present evidence that the parties filed a declaration of informal marriage with

the county clerk. Hinojosa, 2021 WL 2217165, at *5 (citing TEX. FAM. CODE ANN

§ 2.401(a)(1)). While such a declaration constitutes prima facie proof of the parties’

informal marriage, parties may have a valid common law marriage without filing

one. See Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929, 931 (Tex. 1993).

      Second, a couple may establish an informal marriage by demonstrating that:

(1) they agreed to be married; (2) after the agreement they lived together in Texas as

husband and wife; and (3) in Texas they represented to others that they were married.

TEX. FAM. CODE ANN § 2.401(a)(2); Estate of Pandozy, No. 05-19-00755-CV, 2021

WL 711500, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 22, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.); Hinojosa,

2021 WL 2217165, at *5. An informal marriage does not exist until the concurrence

of all three elements. Winegardner v. Hughes, No. 07-18-00434-CV, No. 07-19-

00283-CV, 2020 WL 1966283, at *3 (Tex. App.—Amarillo Apr. 23, 2020, no pet.)

(mem. op.).

                                         –3–
       The existence of an informal marriage is a fact question. Joplin v. Borusheski,

244 S.W.3d 607, 610–11 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, no pet.); In re Whetstone, No.

05-18-00165-CV, 2019 WL 698090, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 20, 2019, pet.

denied) (mem. op). The party seeking to establish the existence of an informal

marriage bears the burden of demonstrating the three elements by a preponderance

of the evidence. Pandozy, 2021 WL 711500, at *3; In re J.G.S., No. 05-18-00452-

CV, 2019 WL 336543, at *3 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 28, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.).

       At trial, Girlfriend had the burden to establish all elements of the alleged

informal marriage. On appeal, when a party attacks the legal sufficiency of an

adverse finding on an issue for which she had the burden of proof, the party must

demonstrate on appeal that the evidence conclusively proves as a matter of law all

vital facts in support of the issue. Whetstone, 2019 WL 698090, at *1. Anything

more than a scintilla of evidence is legally sufficient to support the finding. Id. When

a party challenges the factual sufficiency of an adverse finding on an issue for which

she has the burden of proof, the challenge will be sustained only if the finding is so

against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong

and unjust. Id.

      In the present case, the evidence does not establish an agreement to be married

or that the parties represented to others that they were married. The parties’

agreement to be married is fundamental to a valid informal marriage. Gary v. Gary,

490 S.W.2d 929, 932 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1973, writ ref’d n.r.e.). As with any

                                          –4–
ultimate fact, the agreement may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence.

Russell, 865 S.W.2d 933.

      Girlfriend testified that the parties exchanged rings and agreed to be together

forever. But she never said the parties agreed to be married. Mother denied that she

and Girlfriend exchanged rings. Instead, they had similar rings representing that they

are gay. Girlfriend wore her ring on her index finger, not her ring finger.

      Mother unequivocally stated that the parties were not married and there was

no agreement to call Girlfriend her spouse. There was no ceremony, nor was there

public representation that she and Girlfriend were married.

      Mother explained that she and Girlfriend never talked about getting married

because Mother was “technically” married to someone else. This marriage involved

a formal ceremony. Girlfriend told Mother they would never be married because

Mother was married to someone else.

      Mother’s cousin also testified that Mother and Girlfriend were not married

and there had been no ceremony. If there had been a ceremony, she would have been

invited because she attended the ceremony for Mother’s marriage to the other

individual.

      The evidence showed that Mother and Girlfriend lived together for many

years. Girlfriend was present when Mother was pregnant, attended prenatal doctor’s

appointments and was with her for the Children’s birth. She assisted with childcare.

When asked what showed an agreement to be married, Girlfriend said that she and

                                         –5–
Mother “spent their lives together,” going on family trips, sending out Christmas

cards, and spending every holiday together.

         Evidence of cohabitation and holding out the other party as one’s spouse may

constitute some evidence of an agreement to be married depending on the facts of

the case. Assoun v. Gustafson, 493 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet.

denied.). Because in modern society it is difficult to infer an agreement to be married

from cohabitation, evidence of “holding out” must be particularly strong to be

probative of such an agreement. Id. Holding out requires more than occasional

references to one another as spouse. See Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904, 910 (Tex.

App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). A couple’s reputation in the community as being

married is a significant factor in determining the holding out element. Id.

         While they were living together, the parties maintained a joint bank account,

credit card, and cell phone account. They purchased a house together, but the deed

listed each party’s marital status as single. The parties never filed joint tax returns

and listed their status as “single” or “head of household.”1 Girlfriend’s name is not

on the Children’s birth certificates.

         Girlfriend’s evidence included forms from the fertility clinic listing her as

Mother’s spouse. She acknowledged, however, that one page also stated that Mother

was “unmarried.” And the parties signed a “Co-parenting Agreement Policy for

   1
       For two tax years during the relationship, Girlfriend claimed one of the Children as a dependent.

                                                    –6–
Unmarried Couples.” Girlfriend’s evidence also included a family medical leave

form from her employer listing Mother as her “partner,” love notes from Mother,

and family photographs.

       Girlfriend testified that she and Mother had two baby showers where she was

“an attending parent,” and referred to as a “mommy.” Girlfriend has designated

Mother and the Children as beneficiaries in her life insurance. Mother initially

designated Girlfriend as a beneficiary on her life insurance but changed that

designation to the Children after they were born.

       Signing a document in the capacity as spouses constitutes some evidence of

holding out to the public. Jackson v. Smith, 703 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Tex. App.—Dallas

1985, no writ). Conversely, evidence that an alleged spouse listed herself as single

on tax returns is evidence that there is no informal marriage. Gary, 490 S.W.2d at

933.

       Here, the isolated references to the parties as spouses on forms are not

“particularly convincing” evidence of holding out. See Assoun, 493 S.W.3d at 160;

In re B.H.W., No. 05-15-00841-CV, 2017 WL 2492612, at *4 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Jun. 9, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (couples isolated references to each other as

spouses generally insufficient to constitute a public representation that a marriage

exists). Likewise, the only disinterested witness who testified said the parties were

not married. And while the love notes and photographs may evidence a relationship,

they do not establish an agreement to be married.

                                        –7–
       Finally, to the extent there was conflicting evidence, the conflict was to be

resolved by the fact finder. J.G.S., 2019 WL 336543, at *3. The trial court was free

to disbelieve Girlfriend and credit Mother’s testimony.

       After reviewing the entire record, we cannot conclude that the trial court’s

determination that Girlfriend failed to meet her burden to establish an informal

marriage is so against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be

clearly wrong and unjust. See id. We resolve Girlfriend’s sole issue against her and

affirm the trial court’s final order.

                                           /Dennise Garcia/
                                           DENNISE GARCIA
                                           JUSTICE

210788F.P05

                                        –8–
                                    S
                            Court of Appeals
                     Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
                                   JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF L.A.M.                      On Appeal from the 254th Judicial
AND L.A.M., CHILDREN,                          District Court, Dallas County, Texas
No. 05-21-00788-CV                             Trial Court Cause No. DF-19-20368.
                                               Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia.
                                               Justices Reichek and Nowell
                                               participating.

       In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial
court is AFFIRMED.

     It is ORDERED that appellee Jessica Moreno
recover her costs of this appeal from appellant Penelope Flores.

Judgment entered this 10th day of February 2023.

                                         –9–