Case Update (31 Aug 2026): Zaragoza v. Fuentes; deferring to foreign divorce proceedings as a matter of comity
The parties, both Mexican citizens, were married in New Mexico in 1953, and had several children. In 2014, the Wife filed for divorce in Texas. At that time, the Husband argued that the Texas court could not divorce them, because they were already divorced in Mexico - in 1959. The Wife argued that the Mexican proceeding lacked due process. Separate from fighting over the 1959 Mexican divorce decree in Texas, the Wife also filed a suit in Mexico to nullify or set aside/challenge the decree. That Mexican litigation remains pending. At one point, in 2022, it looked as if it might be concluded. The parties reached a settlement agreement for Wife to withdraw her lawsuit, signed by her lawyer, but shortly thereafter, she challenged the settlement, asserting that her lawyer lacked authority to withdraw the suit on her behalf.
Relevant to this appeal, Husband sought to dismiss the Texas lawsuit on the basis of the ongoing Mexican litigation. The Texas trial court then dismissed without prejudice its case, recognizing as a matter of comity, the pending Mexican proceedings. It did not, however, make any determination as to whether due process was met or whether it would recognize the 1959 decree. Presumably, once the Mexican proceedings related to the divorce decree were resolved, something could be refiled in Texas, if necessary. The Wife appealed that decision. The Court of Appeals reviewed the trial court’s decision for an abuse of discretion.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the comity factors in the Restatement (3d) of Foreign Relations Law, and noted that the burden to dismiss lies on the party who seeks dismissal on the basis of international comity (here, Husband). For purposes of recognizing a foreign judgment, Tex. R. Civ. Pro. 308b applies to a suit involving a marriage relationship or a parent-child relationship under the Family Code. However, here, the trial court did not yet make any determination as to whether it would recognize the 1959 Divorce Decree from Mexico. It is, at this early juncture, only assessing whether to defer to the Mexican proceedings. The Court of Appeals concluded that recognizing the ongoing Mexican proceedings as a matter of comity was not an abuse of discretion. A valid marriage must exist for the Texas trial court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a suit for divorce. There is ongoing litigation related to the validity of the Mexican decree. There has been substantial litigation in the Mexican courts. If the Mexican courts invalidate its court’s divorce decree, then the parties remain married, and presumably the Texas case can proceed. If the Mexican courts validate its court’s divorce decree, then there may still be litigation in Texas, but the question would shift to whether to recognize the Mexican judgment, an issue that has yet to be resolved in Texas. A Texas court’s invocation of comity in this situation is entirely within its discretion. Among other arguments, Mexico has a sovereign interest in making a decision, proceeding in Texas simultaneously could risk inconsistent determinations, and the Wife herself pursued the litigation in Mexico and had reasonable expectations that it should conclude its process.
Even though the Court of Appeals affirmed, it did remand, asking the trial court to consider its remedy, and specifically referencing whether a temporary stay or abatement, rather than dismissal, may be more appropriate in this case.
