Click Here For The Best Edinburg Probate Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best Edinburg Probate Lawyer Directory

Description:

Edinburg, Texas probate lawyers represented the parties in a determination of heirs dispute.


Alonzo and Figueroa were married from 1999 to 2006. Their marriage was dissolved by a "Final Decree of Divorce" signed on October 25, 2006.[2] This original divorce decree contained numerous provisions specifically addressing the division of their marital estate. For instance, the decree awarded Figueroa items that were "in [his] possession . . . or subject to his sole control," sums and benefits "existing by reason of [Figueroa's] past, present, or future employment," a specific piece of realty in Hidalgo County, and "[a]ll real properties acquired during marriage and not listed hereinbefore or hereinafter." The decree subsequently awarded Alonzo items that were "in [her] possession or subject to her sole control," sums and rights derived from her "past, present, or future employment," and several specific pieces of realty in Hidalgo County.

Almost five years later, on August 24, 2011, in the same cause number, Alonzo filed a "Post Judgment Petition for Division of Property, Request for Accounting, Request for Declaratory Judgment, Request for Temporary and Permanent Injunction, and Request for Hearing on the Temporary Injunction with Request for Disclosure." Alonzo alleged that, after the parties divorced, she "subsequently discovered that the divorce decree did not dispose of all property acquired during the marriage" and that "any and all property not properly addressed in the final divorce decree" was now held by the parties as tenants in common. Alonzo sought an accounting and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On November 27, 2011, Figueroa filed a "Plea to the Jurisdiction, Special Exceptions and Answer to [Petitioner's] Amended Post Judgment Petition for Division of Property, Request for Accounting, Request for Declaratory Judgment, Request for Temporary or Permanent Injunction, and Request for Hearing on the Temporary Injunction with Request for Disclosure." Figueroa denied that the court had jurisdiction to grant Alonzo's requested relief; specially excepted to Alonzo's petition on various grounds, including that Alonzo failed to specifically identify any items of property which were allegedly not disposed in the original divorce decree; generally denied Alonzo's claims; and argued that her claims were barred by limitations.

On July 31, 2014, Figueroa's counsel filed a motion to withdraw from representing him in the lawsuit. Counsel identified Figueroa's last known address as "c/o Provident Financial Management" at a post office box in Santa Monica, California.

On July 13, 2015, Figueroa passed away.

On July 14, 2015, Alonzo filed a "Suggestion of Death" for Figueroa requesting the trial court to issue scire facias[3] for Figueroa's "Administrator or Executor or Heir" and identifying "the last known address" as "Provident Financial Management" in Santa Monica, California. On August 3, 2015, the trial court granted Alonzo's request and ordered the clerk to issue a writ of scire facias, noting that the "last known address for [Figueroa]" was contained in the motion to withdraw filed by Figueroa's former counsel. On August 6, 2015, the clerk issued a writ of scire facias. It would appear to have been served on Provident Financial Management by certified mail; however, the return of service contained in the record is illegible.

On May 6, 2020, Alonzo filed a motion for summary judgment and judgment nihil dicit[4] premised on her 2011 post-decree petition for division of property. Alonzo explained that Figueroa had filed an answer to her petition, but his counsel withdrew and Figueroa had passed away. Alonzo informed the court that she had filed a suggestion of death and the clerk had issued a writ of scire facias. She further stated that she had filed a "Notice of Pending Lawsuit and Claim"[5] in Figueroa's separately pending probate proceeding. Alonzo alleged that despite these efforts, no one had appeared on behalf of Figueroa's estate to respond to her claims; thus, a judgment nihil dicit was appropriate. Alonzo requested the trial court to award her a "rightful 50% share of the previously undisclosed community property." Alonzo provided an itemized list of the property at issue, which we summarize as follows in the interests of brevity:

• "Ownership interest in all real property acquired by [Figueroa] during the marriage" but not disposed in the original decree, including two pieces of realty in Irvine, California and Riverside, California;

• "Ownership interest in all personal property acquired by [Figueroa] during the marriage . . . including, but not limited to" two different airplanes;

• "Ownership interest in and share of all payments (including royalties, fees or other payments) . . . derived from any and all works/songs written, produced and or performed by [Figueroa] during the marriage";

• "Ownership interest in and share of all payments made by Universal Musical Publishing Group that were derived from any and all works/songs written, produced and or performed by [Figueroa] during the . . . marriage";

• "Any and all Sound Exchange royalties or payments for any and all digital performances of songs written, produced and or performed by [Figueroa] during the marriage";

• "Any and all interest that [Figueroa] had in any corporate entity formed or acquired during the marriage . . . including, but not limited to Canteres Entertainment LLC (CA), Canteres LLC (DEL), Canteres Corp (NV), Red Planet Music Corp (DEL), Joan Sebastian, LLC (DEL) and/or Portico Music Inc.";

• "Ownership interest in any and all trademarks created or filed by or on behalf of [Figueroa] during the marriage"; and

• "Any and all copyright interest in all songs written or recorded by [Figueroa] during the marriage."

Alonzo supported her motion for summary judgment and judgment nihil dicit with various exhibits including her April 9, 2020 affidavit. In the affidavit, Alonzo averred that "[w]ell after" the 2006 divorce decree was signed, she "discovered that there was significant real, personal and intellectual property and assets that had been acquired during [the] marriage but that had not been disclosed and they were not included in the just and right division of [the] community property." She stated that "[b]ased on information and belief," the property that she identified "was not included in the just and right division of the community property under the final divorce decree and [she] should be entitled to [her] 50% share."

The trial court granted Alonzo's requested relief by order signed on July 17, 2020. The "Order Granting [Alonzo's] Motion for Summary Judgment and Judgment [Nihil Dicit]" is the first of the two orders at issue in this petition for writ of mandamus.

On March 5, 2021, in the probate proceeding, the probate court granted administration and appointed Alonzo as the dependent administrator of the decedent's estate.

On April 14, 2023, Alonzo filed a motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.[6] She argued that the summary judgment contained "a clerical mistake that if put in the improper hands may not be interpreted to accurately reflect the truth or justice of the case." Specifically, she alleged that there was a clerical error because the judgment did not grant her an award of 50% of the listed properties "that runs until infinity or at a time that she conveys or sells that 50% interest" or "until such a time that she is deceased."

On September 14, 2023, the trial court signed an "Order Granting Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc and this Corrected Judgment Nihil Dicit." This is the second of the two orders at issue in this original proceeding. This order tracks the terms of the previous summary judgment and additionally provides that Alonzo's 50% interest in the specified items "is an interest she holds as long in time as the law allows or until a time that she conveys or sells that 50% undivided interest"; that her interest "in all the intellectual property includes but is not limited to songs written and/or recorded by [the decedent] during the marriage"; and that her share of all payments, royalties, and fees derived from the decedent's "works," including songs written, produced, and or performed, encompassed those derived from anything created or produced both during the marriage and "AFTER the divorce."

On October 13, 2023, relators filed a motion requesting the trial court to reconsider its order granting Alonzo's motion for judgment nunc pro tunc. They stated that they learned of Alonzo's actions only "recently." Relators asserted that Alonzo was the administrator of the estate when the order issued and that "it was likely legally impossible for [Alonzo] to appear to represent the interests of [Figueroa] in the case she brought against him." Relators further argued that the trial court had changed the substantive division of the marital property as provided by the original divorce decree. And finally, relators also asserted that a nunc pro tunc judgment was not appropriate because the alleged errors were judicial rather than clerical in nature. On December 22, 2023, after further unrelated proceedings in the case, relators filed a supplement to their motion for reconsideration.

On December 28, 2023, the trial court denied relators' motion for reconsideration, but determined that relators possessed standing to pursue their claims. Relators thereafter filed a notice of appeal. See In re Marriage of Alonzo &Figueroa, No. 13-24-00011-CV, 2024 WL 377845, at *1 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi-Edinburg Feb. 1,2024, no pet.) (mem. op.). We dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Id.

This original proceeding ensued. Relators raise four issues with sub-issues through which they assert that: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a void summary judgment and judgment nihil dicit in a post-divorce proceeding; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by issuing a void judgment nunc pro tunc and judgment nihil dicit; (3) relators lack an adequate remedy by appeal; and (4) relators have standing. We requested and received a response to the petition for writ of mandamus from Alonzo, and received a reply thereto from relators.
In re Figueroa, 13-24-00307-CV (Tex. App. Aug 16, 2024)

Outcome: The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, Alonzo's response, relators' reply, the record, and the applicable law, concludes that relators have met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus, and we direct the trial court to vacate the July 17, 2020 and September 14, 2023 judgments. Our writ will issue only if the trial court fails to act in accordance with this opinion.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: