479 S.W.3d 352
Tex. App.2015Background
- Yepez and Castelo cohabited 1996–1998 and had a son, C.M.V., born 1997; Castelo initially denied paternity and was not on the birth certificate.
- In July 2000 Yepez filed for divorce and included a SAPCR naming C.M.V.; Castelo answered denying paternity but sought no affirmative relief.
- In August 2001 Yepez (not serving Castelo) obtained a district-court order changing the child’s surname to her maiden name; the divorce was dismissed in October 2001.
- In June 2011 the Texas Attorney General sued to establish paternity and obtain child support; DNA testing later confirmed Castelo’s paternity.
- At the 2013 trial the court: adjudicated paternity; set aside the 2001 name-change judgment as fraudulently obtained; changed the child’s surname to Castelo; found (implied) common-law marriage; awarded Castelo $50,000 for fraud; and ordered child support and retroactive support.
- The court of appeals reversed or rendered judgment on major portions: reinstated the 2001 name-change as final, reversed the surname change to Castelo, held the evidence insufficient for common-law marriage and fraud, and rendered judgment accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Castelo's Argument | Yepez's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could set aside 2001 name-change without bill of review | 383rd Ct. could void name-change as procured by fraud and confirm/change surname | Name-change was a final valid order; attack required a bill of review; court lacked jurisdiction to set it aside | Reversed: court lacked authority to set aside the 2001 order; bill of review required; rendered judgment denying Castelo’s motion to confirm/change surname |
| Whether changing C.M.V.’s surname to Castelo was in child’s best interest | Changing to father’s name is appropriate after adjudication of paternity | Name had been used since age 4; no evidence surname change was in child’s best interest | Reversed: evidence legally insufficient on best-interest factors; surname remains V. |
| Whether a common-law marriage existed between Yepez and Castelo | Castelo claimed agreement, cohabitation and representations gave rise to common-law marriage | Yepez disputed agreement; argued lack of intent and statutory presumption after 2-year separation | Reversed/rendered: evidence legally insufficient to establish common-law marriage; judgment that no common-law marriage exists |
| Whether Yepez committed fraud (including nondisclosure) by hiding child/name-change | Castelo alleged multiple fraud theories (disappearance, nondisclosure of location, nondisclosure of probable paternity, nondisclosure of name-change) causing injury | Yepez argued no duty to disclose, no reliance, no causal injury tied to nondisclosure; statutes cited didn’t impose duty pre-paternity adjudication | Reversed/rendered: evidence legally insufficient to prove fraud or fraud by nondisclosure; Castelo takes nothing on fraud claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Middleton v. Murff, 689 S.W.2d 212 (Tex. 1985) (bill of review is exclusive post-plenary remedy to set aside final judgments)
- Deen v. Kirk, 508 S.W.2d 70 (Tex. 1974) (definition of court's jurisdictional power)
- In re H.S.B., 401 S.W.3d 77 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2011) (best-interest factors for child name change)
- Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1993) (elements and proof of common-law marriage)
- Burden v. Burden, 420 S.W.3d 305 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2013) (agreement-to-marry requires intent to create immediate and permanent marital relationship)
- Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Swanson, 959 S.W.2d 171 (Tex. 1997) (fraud by nondisclosure requires duty to disclose)
- Formosa Plastics Corp. USA v. Presidio Eng’rs & Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41 (Tex. 1998) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573 (Tex. 2012) (standard for abuse of discretion review)