Gonzalez v. Gonzalez
| Decision Date | 02 August 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 6249,6249 |
| Citation | 484 S.W.2d 611 |
| Parties | Jose I. GONZALEZ, Appellant, v. Gloria GONZALEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Galvan & Galvan, Frank J., Galvan, Jr., El Paso, for appellant.
Armendariz & Armendariz, Albert Armendariz, El Paso, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a divorce suit. Appellant and Appellee were married on March 15, 1965. Appellant originally filed for divorce on April 29, 1968. Thereafter, a reconciliation was effected between the two parties, and Appellee filed a motion to dismiss Appellant's cause of action on June 25, 1970. On July 10, 1971, Appellee filed a cross action. Trial before the Court was held, and judgment rendered on September 23, 1971, granting the divorce. We affirm.
Appellant contends, by his first point of error, that the divorce judgment rendered is invalid and void because Appellee's 'cross petition failed to aver the residence requirement for her divorce action' and that Appellant never submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial Court as he was not served with process on Appellee's cross action. Appellee's petition in her cross action stated: 'That both parties are residents of this county and this state and have been so for the required jurisdictional period.' The record reflects no complaint made by Appellant in regard to the aforementioned averment. Rule 90, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that every defect in a pleading either of form or substance shall be deemed to have been waived unless pointed out by motion or exception except as to any party against whom default judgment is rendered. Appellant has waived any objection as to the residence requirement averred in Appellee's cross petition. See Long v. Long, Tex.Civ.App., 365 S.W.2d 214; Harris v. Harris, Tex.Civ.App., 190 S.W.2d 489. Further, Appellant's assertion that he did not waive service of process nor voluntarily submit himself to the jurisdiction of the trial Court is without merit, as the record reflects Appellant appeared both personally and through his attorney before the Court, and his attorney approved the final judgment as to form. Such appearances had the same effect as service of citation. Rule 120, T.R.C.P. Appellant's first point of error is overruled.
Appellant urges, in his second point of error, that the Family Code is 'invalid, void, unconstitutional and repugnant to public policy.' Appellant does not point to which section of the Constitution he deems to be in conflict, and a mere assertion of unconstitutionality without more specificity is insufficient for appellate review. Ranniger v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 460 S.W.2d 181; Rule 418, T.R.C.P. Appellant's second point of error is overruled.
Appellant's third point of error is that the trial Court erred in refusing to make further findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to the character of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Davis
...writ ref'd n.r.e.) (failure to object that corporation whose charter had been forfeited had no capacity to sue or defend); Gonzales v. Gonzales, 484 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1972, no writ) (failure to object to averment of residence requirement in divorce case); Kaherl v. Kaherl, 3......
-
CIGNA Ins. Co. v. TPG Store, Inc.
...a defendant's appearance before a court generally indicates a submission to the court's jurisdiction. See Tex.R.Civ.P. 120; Gonzalez v. Gonzalez, 484 S.W.2d 611, 613 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1972, no writ). No dispute exists that INAC appeared before the trial court in this proceeding. INAC a......
-
Pool Co. v. Salt Grass Exploration, Inc.
...writ ref'd n.r.e.) (failure to object that corporation whose charter had been forfeited had no capacity to sue or defend); Gonzales v. Gonzales, 484 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1972, no writ) (failure to object to averment of residence requirement in divorce case); Kaherl v. Kaherl, 3......
-
Haley v. Young, 16731
...Antonio 1964, writ ref'd n.r .e.); Bullock v. Land, 443 S.W.2d 60 (Tex.Civ.App.--Eastland 1969, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Gonzales v. Gonzales, 484 S.W.2d 611 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso 1972, no writ history). Where the proper person intended to be sued was incorrectly named in the plaintiff's petiti......