Randol Rene Lopez v. Mary Balderrama
13-15-00083-CV
| Tex. App. | Apr 20, 2015Background
- This is an appeal from a final partition judgment in Willacy County, Texas granting sale of two tracts and distribution among heirs.
- Appellant Lopez answered; several other heirs also answered or waived; a status hearing occurred August 20, 2014 without written notice to the parties.
- The trial court rendered final judgment for partition after a status hearing, with evidence not introduced to prove ownership shares or feasibility of partition in kind.
- Lopez moved to set aside the order, arguing no notice and lack of evidentiary support; he also requested findings of fact and conclusions of law.
- Final order found ownership in Anita Garza’s estate, denied partition in kind, and ordered sale with proceeds distributed to seven heirs; Appellant was not named as a party with interest.
- Appellant appealed within the 90-day window after the final order; the trial court denied the motion to set aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Lopez receive proper notice of the final hearing? | Lopez received no written notice prior to final hearing. | Balderrama's counsel claimed only verbal notice occurred in another proceeding. | Yes, lack of proper notice requires reversal. |
| Was there evidentiary support for partition by sale rather than partition in kind? | Evidence showed ownership interests and feasibility; partition by sale was supported. | Record lacked evidence establishing ownership shares or impeding partition in kind. | No sufficient evidence to support partition by sale; judgment reversed. |
| Did the trial court's failure to file findings of fact and conclusions of law prejudice Lopez? | Findings were timely requested to aid appellate review. | No ruling on findings; not prejudicial if law supports judgment. | Harm presumed; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anzaldua v. Anzaldua, 742 S.W.2d 782 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg, 1987) (harmful-error reversal when no findings support the judgment)
- Delgado v. Hernandez, 951 S.W.2d 97 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi-Edinburg 1997) (notice presumptions and due process in contested cases)
- In re P.C., 339 S.W.3d 322 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2011) (verbal notice insufficient for final hearing)
- Stoner v. Thompson, 578 S.W.2d 679 (Tex. 1979) (post-answer default requires evidence; cannot rely on pleadings alone)
- Mathis v. Lockwood, 166 S.W.3d 743 (Tex. 2005) (per curiam; notice and due-process considerations in defaults)
- LBL Oil Co. v. Intl. Power Services, Inc., 777 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. 1989) (due-process notice requirement in contested cases)
- Cisneros v. Regalado Family Ltd. Partnership, 2011 WL 3366345 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi–Edinburg, Aug. 4, 2011) (default judgments require evidence to prove pleadings)