State v. Naylor, 330 S.W.3d 434

Naylor and Daly, married in Massachusetts on September 27, 2004, returned to Texas, adopted a child J.D., and operated a real estate business before separating.
Naylor filed a SAPCR in January 2009 seeking joint managing conservatorship and exclusive right to designate J.D.'s primary residence; an agreed order followed.
On December 3, 2009, Naylor filed a pro se petition for divorce in the SAPCR case, later amended to include a modification of the parent-child relationship.
Daly moved to declare the marriage void under Texas Family Code § 6.204 or, alternatively, sought temporary property orders; the court granted a continuance to allow counsel to be obtained and issued interim property orders.
A February 9–10, 2010 hearing considered both child custody and property-division issues; the court encouraged settlement given the complexity and potential for extensive litigation, including multiple entities and foreclosures.
The parties settled all issues on the record, the court granted the divorce, and the next day the State filed a petition in intervention arguing lack of jurisdiction due to a same-sex marriage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal post-judgment	State claims virtual-representation allows appeal.	State not virtually represented; no identity of interest or binding judgment.	State lacks standing; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Timeliness of intervention	Intervention timely under virtual-representation principles.	Intervention occurred after rendition and was untimely.	Intervention untimely; post-judgment status does not confer standing.
Implied constitutional challenge to § 6.204	Naylor's petition implied an attack on § 6.204's constitutionality.	No explicit or implied constitutional challenge was raised; statute interpreted in a way that could permit divorce.	No implied constitutional challenge; statute not read to invalidate the divorce under § 6.204.

Ledbetter v. Texas, 251 S.W.3d 31 (Tex.2008) (standing is prerequisite to subject-matter jurisdiction)
In re Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 184 S.W.3d 718 (Tex.2006) (virtual-representation exception to appeal)
City of San Benito v. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co., 109 S.W.3d 750 (Tex.2003) (key test for virtual-representation elements)
Gunn v. Cavanaugh, 391 S.W.2d 723 (Tex.1965) (standing to appeal is limited to parties of record)
S & A Restaurant Corp. v. Leal, 892 S.W.2d 855 (Tex.1995) (timing and rights of post-judgment interventions)
El Paso Indep. Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. Attorney Gen., 1 S.W.3d 108 (Tex.1999) (virtual representation allows post-judgment standing when appropriate)
Guaranty Fed. Sav. Bank v. Horseshoe Operating Co., 793 S.W.2d 652 (Tex.1990) (trial court discretion in intervention)