Case Update (9 Apr 2026): In re. Marriage San Emeterio and Gonzalez; Mexican divorce decree recognized, therefore Texas has no jurisdiction
The parties married in Mexico in 1989. They later moved to Texas. On December 7, 2020, the Husband filed a “no-fault divorce” petition in Mexico. On May 25, 2021, the Wife filed the Texas divorce lawsuit at issue here. On January 3, 2022, the Husband counter-claimed in the Texas divorce suit. Both parties alleged they had been domiciled in Texas for the requisite period to request a divorce in Texas. Neither mentioned the Mexican divorce proceeding. On February 23, 2022, the Mexican court divorced the parties, the Wife appealed, and on August 18, 2023, the Mexican appellate court affirmed the divorce in Mexico. The appellate court found some procedural defects, but concluded that a no-fault divorce may be granted on the will of only one spouse. On October 13, 2023, the Husband filed a non-suit and plead to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss the Texas divorce suit, alleging the parties were divorced in Mexico. The Texas trial court concluded that: (1) the parties were not married (because they were divorced in Mexico), (2) the Texas court has no subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce suit because of the Mexican divorce judgment, and (3) the Mexican appellate court decision affirming the divorce is recognized as a matter of comity. The Wife appeals.
The Court of Appeals of Texas stated that “[i]f a marriage previously was legally dissolved, then the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to again dissolve that marriage.” It reviewed the principle of comity, where it extends recognition to a sister sovereign’s laws and judgments out of deference and respect. Since comity differs from full, faith, and credit, it is a matter of discretion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas reviewed whether the trial court should have deferred to the Mexican courts for an abuse of discretion. If the Mexican judgment was devoid of due process, and the trial court recognized it, that is an abuse of discretion. The court is required to independently determine whether to recognize the foreign judgment, even if no party contested it. The Wife here appeals on four separate arguments. Among her arguments, Wife contested the timing in which the Husband raised the issue of the Mexican divorce, and argued the Husband was required to argue the judgment as an affirmative defense of res judicata. She also argued he failed to adhere to the Texas Rules, which dictate a notice requirement when seeking recognition of a foreign judgment. She also argued that service of process in the Mexican proceeding was defective, hence recognition of that judgment would violate Texas public policy and constitutional guarantees. Her argument suggested that the Mexican court should have strictly adhered to Texas service rules, and failure to do so is a de facto violation of due process. She did not argue that she was never served or never had notification of the Mexican proceedings.
The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion, and affirmed the trial court, which had dismissed the Texas divorce suit, since it had concluded the parties were already divorced.
