In re Miramontes

Decision Date14 April 2022
Docket Number08-21-00113-CV
Citation648 S.W.3d 590
Parties IN RE: Priscila Armendariz MIRAMONTES, Individually, and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Alejandro Francisco Fernandez Valles, Relator.
CourtTexas Court of Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR RELATOR: Daniel Ordonez, Blanco, Ordonez, Mata & Wallace, PC, 5715 Cromo Drive, El Paso, TX 79912.

RESPONDENT: Eduardo Gamboa, Judge, Probate Ct No. 2, 500 E. San Antonio, Ste. 803, El Paso, TX 79901.

ATTORNEY FOR REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: David M. Mirazo, Mounce, Green, Myers, Safi, Paxson & Galatzan, P. O. Box 1977, El Paso, TX 79999-1977.

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.

MANDAMUS OPINION

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Relator, Priscila Armendariz Miramontes, Individually, and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Alejandro Francisco Fernandez Valles, (Miramontes) filed a mandamus petition against the Honorable Eduardo Gamboa, Judge of the Statutory Probate Court Number Two in El Paso County, Texas, asking us to order Judge Gamboa to vacate the trial court's order granting bill of review in favor of Real Party in Interest, Ignacio Fernandez (Ignacio).

We decline to do so. We find the trial court did not commit a clear abuse of discretion in granting bill of review in favor of Ignacio and setting aside the underlying judgments. Miramontes’ petition is denied.

BACKGROUND
The Life Insurance Policy

In 2009, American General Life Insurance Company (American General) issued a $3 million life insurance policy in which Alejandro Francisco Fernandez Valles (Alejandro) was the named insured (the Policy).1 In 2010, Alejandro changed the primary beneficiary of the Policy from his wife, Relator, to his mother, Silvia Valles Hicks (Silvia). Following the change, Relator, Miramontes, Alejandro's wife, became the contingent beneficiary on the Policy. Thus, if Silvia predeceased Alejandro, Miramontes would obtain the Policy's proceeds. However, if Silvia was alive when Alejandro passed away, she would be entitled to the Policy's proceeds, which would then pass to her heirs upon her death via either (a) designation under a will, or (b) through the laws of intestacy.

Alejandro was kidnapped from his home in Chihuahua, Mexico, on June 16, 2011, and was never seen alive or heard from again.

On February 13, 2016, Silvia died intestate. Two days before her death, she submitted a claim for the proceeds under the Policy. However, without proof of Alejandro's death, American General would not pay the insurance proceeds.

Miramontes sought a declaration of death for Alejandro with the Morelos First Judicial Family Court for the State of Chihuahua, Mexico (hereafter, First Family Court). She made her first request on April 22, 2014, and on May 31, 2016, the First Family Court entered an order declaring Alejandro's presumed date of death was the date of his disappearance, June 16, 2011. An "Inscripcion de Defuncion,"2 was issued June 10, 2016, filed with the State of Chihuahua, declaring Alejandro's presumed date of death was June 16, 2011.

On June 13, 2016, Miramontes submitted a claim to American General for the Policy's proceeds. Her claim included a copy of the "Inscripcion de Defuncion" indicating June 16, 2011, was Alejandro's "supposed" date of death.

Subsequently, Miramontes submitted to American General a "Presumption of Death" order issued by the First Family Court under a different case number declaring Alejandro's date of death to be May 31, 2016. This second "Presumption of Death" order from the First Family Court notes the May 31, 2016, the newly designated date of death was made at Miramontes’ request. A death certificate, certified July 12, 2017, lists the date of death as May 31, 2016, which the certificate's marginal notes indicate is based on the "Presumption of Death" order entered by the First Family Court.3 American General denied the claim, noting it could not confirm Alejandro's date of death, and had concerns the "Presumption of Death Certificate" submitted by Miramontes "had been materially altered from its original, official version."

The Interpleader Case and the Estate Cases

In March of 2017, American General filed an interpleader in the 34th Judicial District Court of El Paso, Texas (hereafter, the district court), styled American General Life Insurance Company v. Priscilla Armendariz Miramontes, and Personal Representative of the Estate of Silvia Teresa Valles Hicks (the Interpleader case). The insurance proceeds from the Policy were deposited in the registry of the court, less approximately $10,000 in attorney's fees and costs. Although the RPI, Ignacio, Alejandro's brother and Silvia's son, was listed in the petition as the personal representative of Silvia Valles’ estate, he was not served with process in the case.

In May of 2017, Miramontes filed an "Application for Ancillary Probate of Authenticated Foreign Heirship Judgment and Issuance of Ancillary Letters of Administration; Recognition of Foreign Heirship Judgment; or in the Alternative, Application for Declaration of Heirship and Issuance of Letters of Independent Administration" in a new case styled In re: the Estate of Alejandro Francisco Fernandez Valles (Alejandro Estate case). The Alejandro Estate case was assigned to the Probate Court Number Two in El Paso County, Texas (probate court). The next day, Miramontes filed an "Application for Declaration of Heirship and for Appointment of Third Party Dependent Administrator, and Issuance of Letters of Administration" in a new case styled In re: the Estate of Silvia Teresa Valles Hicks , also assigned to the probate court (Silvia Estate case). Ignacio was not served with process in either case.

Hearings in both the Alejandro Estate case and the Silvia Estate case occurred on June 22, 2017. Miramontes testified in the Alejandro Estate case that Alejandro died on May 31, 2016, and the death certificate indicating as much was correct. Counsel for Miramontes also made a "disclosure" to the trial court at the end of the Alejandro Estate case hearing that, "Although it's not relevant to the proceedings, the decedent [Alejandro] met with foul play. He was kidnapped, and he's presumed deceased. There was an action that was filed in Mexico. There was a judgment, a presumption of death.... It was declaring him dead." Neither Miramontes nor her attorney mentioned any documents stating Alejandro's presumed date of death was the date of his kidnapping on June 16, 2011.

The judgments declaring heirship in both cases include "findings of fact and conclusions of law" stating Alejandro died on May 31, 2016. The judgment in the Silvia Estate case appointed Karin Carson as a third-party dependent administrator of Silvia's estate.

In the Interpleader case, after her appointment as third-party dependent administrator in the Silvia Estate case, Karin Carson waived citation of service on behalf of Silvia's estate and filed a general denial on its behalf. Miramontes then filed a crossclaim against Silvia's estate and moved for summary judgment. The summary judgment asserted the judgment in the Alejandro Estate case "issu[ed] findings of fact and conclusions of law determining [Alejandro's] date of death to be May 31, 2016. The court recognized the date of death as determined by the Third Civil Court of Hearings ..., File Number E 591/2016."4 Miramontes’ motion likewise asserted the judgment in the Silvia Estate case "ma[de] findings of fact and conclusions of law determining [Silvia] died intestate on February 13, 2016[,] ... and recognized that [Alejandro] had a judicially adjudicated date of death of May 31, 2016, a date subsequent to the death of [Silvia]."

The sole argument offered by Miramontes in her motion for summary judgment against the Silvia Estate in the Interpleader case was that the judgments in the Silvia Estate case and the Alejandro Estate case "concretely determined ... that [Silvia] predeceased her son, [Alejandro], and that [Alejandro's] determined date of death was May 31, 2016. The issue was essential to the judgments in both actions, as the determination of who predeceased whom ultimately determined the distribution of the estate in both actions." Therefore, according to Miramontes’ motion, "no genuine issues of material fact exist to contradict or call into question these thoroughly litigated and judicially adjudicated facts ... [and] there is sufficient evidence for the [district court] to grant a summary judgment on this point."

On September 29, 2017, Ignacio entered an appearance through counsel in the Interpleader case and, on November 28, 2017, filed a motion for continuance of the summary judgment proceedings initiated by Miramontes. He argued Miramontes’ motion "relies on Judgments obtained in two separate proceedings wherein [Ignacio] was not afforded an opportunity to participate[,] ... and were based on findings in the Mexican Courts which are currently on appeal and/or are being collaterally challenged in Mexico." The motion for continuance sought "additional time to challenge the Judgments adjudicating his rights before the insurance proceeds are wrongfully distributed." Miramontes opposed the appearance entered by Ignacio in the Interpleader case and the request for a continuance of the summary judgment hearing, arguing Ignacio "lacks standing in [the Interpleader case] as he has failed to show he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, some direct injury as a result of the asserted causes of action in this case."

The district court entered judgment in favor of Miramontes on December 1, 2017, adjudging and decreeing Alejandro's date of death to be May 31, 2016, and Silvia's date of death to be February 13, 2016. It ordered the balance of the Policy's proceeds in the court's registry to be paid to Miramontes through her counsel. The same day, the district court struck Ignacio's entry of appearance through counsel, decreeing Ignacio lacked standing to participate in the Interpleader case and was not a party.

The Bills of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Tex. Health Harris Methodist Hosp. Fort Worth v. Featherly
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • April 14, 2022
  • 21st Century Centennial Ins. Co. v. Ramirez
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • August 22, 2023
    ... ... In re McAllen Med ... Ctr., Inc. , 275 S.W.3d 458, 464 (Tex. 2008) (orig ... proceeding). Thus, depending on the circumstances, mandamus ... may be available to review an order granting a bill of ... review. See In re Miramontes , 648 S.W.3d 590, ... 599-600 (Tex. App.- El Paso 2022, orig. proceeding); In ... re Estrada , 492 S.W.3d at 49 ...           IV ... Bill of Review ...          A bill ... of review is an independent equitable proceeding filed by a ... ...
  • In re D.D.
    • United States
    • Texas Court of Appeals
    • February 10, 2023
    ...entry of a void judgment at any time, either during the term [of plenary power] or after the term, with or without a motion therefor.'" Id. at 607 (quoting Thomas v. Miller, S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex. App.- Texarkana 1995, no writ)) (additional citations omitted). A "parent as to whom the parent......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT