Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00408-CV
Belinda ORTIZ, Appellant
v.
Miguel Angel MARTINEZ, Appellee
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CI14579 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 28, 2021
AFFIRMED
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding. Belinda Ortiz appeals a final summary
judgment that the trial court rendered in favor of Miguel Angel Martinez. The trial court granted
Martinez’s summary judgment motion, which argued he and Ortiz did not have a common law
marriage, as Ortiz alleged. Because Ortiz did not present evidence raising a fact issue as to the
existence of a common law marriage, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 04-20-00408-CV
BACKGROUND
In 2019, Ortiz filed a petition for divorce. Ortiz alleged that she and Martinez had a
common law marriage, starting in or around June of 2006, and they stopped living together as
spouses in July 2019. Ortiz sought a divorce on the grounds of insupportability, adultery, and cruel
treatment, and she requested a division of the community property. Martinez filed an answer,
specifically denying that he and Ortiz were married.
Martinez also filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In support
of the traditional grounds, Martinez produced tax returns, deeds, excerpts from testimony at a prior
hearing, and over fifteen affidavits stating he and Ortiz did not have a common law marriage.
Martinez argued that the evidence established the absence of a common law marriage and,
conversely, Ortiz had no evidence to show she and Martinez had a common law marriage.
Ortiz filed a response. She also attached tax records, as well as two affidavits. Although
Ortiz’s summary judgment response identified the exhibits attached to her response, the two-page
response did not describe the evidence or argue how the evidence raised a fact issue. The tax
documents Ortiz produced show that Martinez referred to Ortiz’s child as his stepchild. The two
affidavits were executed by Ortiz’s brother and sister. The affidavits state Martinez referred to
them as his brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively.
The trial court granted Martinez’s motion for summary judgment without specifying the
grounds, and it rendered a final summary judgment dismissing Ortiz’s divorce petition with
prejudice. Ortiz filed a timely notice of appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review summary judgments de novo. Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen,
525 S.W.3d 671, 680 (Tex. 2017). “Where, as here, a trial court does not specify the grounds on
which it granted the motion for summary judgment, we must affirm if any of the grounds asserted
-2- 04-20-00408-CV
in the motion are meritorious.” Id. “Further, when the motion asserts both no-evidence and
traditional grounds, we first review the no-evidence grounds.” Id. “If the nonmovant fails to
produce more than a scintilla of evidence on the essential elements of a cause of action challenged
by a no-evidence motion, there is no need to analyze the movant’s traditional grounds for summary
judgment.” Id. at 680–81. To prevail on a traditional summary judgment motion, however, the
movant must show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine
issue of material fact.” Id. at 681.
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE
In Texas, a common law marriage has three requirements: (1) the parties agreed to be
married; (2) thereafter, the parties lived together in Texas as spouses; and (3) the parties
represented to others that they were married. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 2.401(a)(2). “To establish that
the parties agreed to be married, it must be shown that they intended to create an immediate and
permanent marriage relationship, not merely a temporary cohabitation that may be ended by either
party.” In re O.R.M., 559 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.). An agreement to
be married may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. See id. Although cohabitation
and representations to others are relevant to show an agreement to be married, more is required to
prove the parties’ agreement to be married, which is a separate statutory requirement that “cannot
be inferred from the mere evidence of cohabitation and representations of marriage to others.” Id.;
see TEX. FAM. CODE § 2.401(a)(2) (requiring an “agree[ment] to be married and after the agreement
they lived together in this state as [spouses] and there represented to others that they were
married”).
Because Martinez filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the
trial court was entitled to consider the no-evidence grounds first. See Hansen, 525 S.W.3d at 680.
Under our summary judgment standards, there was no need to analyze Martinez’s traditional
-3- 04-20-00408-CV
grounds for summary judgment if Ortiz failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence on the
essential elements of a common law marriage. See id. In her summary judgment response, Ortiz
merely showed that Martinez had referred to Ortiz’s family members as his “in laws.” This
evidence shows Martinez’s representations to others, but an agreement to be married “cannot be
inferred from the mere evidence of . . . representations of marriage to others.” See O.R.M., 559
S.W.3d at 744.
After briefly setting out the standard of review and procedural history, Ortiz’s response to
the no-evidence summary judgment motion simply identified exhibits attached to her response:
Non-Movant claims a genuine issue of material fact as to Movant’s common law marriage claim and requests an incorporation by reference of selected pages from Movant’s summary judgment evidence of his tax returns. Non-Movant also seeks to include the proposed Temporary Orders and Judge’s Notes from August 12, 2019. Furthermore, Non-Movant will also include two affidavits as summary judgment evidence, referenced in an appendix attached hereto, filed with this response and incorporated by reference for all purposes as if recited verbatim herein.
“When presenting summary judgment evidence, a party must identify the supporting proof that it
intends the trial court to consider,” but more is required. See Hinojosa v. Koen, No. 04-18-00907-
CV, 2019 WL 5773672, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 6, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Attaching documents to a summary judgment response and “referencing them only
generally does not relieve the party of pointing out to the trial court where in the documents the
issues set forth in the motion or response are raised.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “General
references to the summary judgment record are inadequate to meet the party’s evidentiary burden.”
Id. “When a summary judgment respondent fails to direct the [trial] court to specific summary
judgment evidence, a fact issue cannot be raised sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Id.
(quotation marks omitted). “A trial court is not required to wade through the record to marshal a
party’s proof.” Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-20-00408-CV
Belinda ORTIZ, Appellant
v.
Miguel Angel MARTINEZ, Appellee
From the 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2019CI14579 Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Irene Rios, Justice
Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice Irene Rios, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: July 28, 2021
AFFIRMED
This appeal arises from a divorce proceeding. Belinda Ortiz appeals a final summary
judgment that the trial court rendered in favor of Miguel Angel Martinez. The trial court granted
Martinez’s summary judgment motion, which argued he and Ortiz did not have a common law
marriage, as Ortiz alleged. Because Ortiz did not present evidence raising a fact issue as to the
existence of a common law marriage, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 04-20-00408-CV
BACKGROUND
In 2019, Ortiz filed a petition for divorce. Ortiz alleged that she and Martinez had a
common law marriage, starting in or around June of 2006, and they stopped living together as
spouses in July 2019. Ortiz sought a divorce on the grounds of insupportability, adultery, and cruel
treatment, and she requested a division of the community property. Martinez filed an answer,
specifically denying that he and Ortiz were married.
Martinez also filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment. In support
of the traditional grounds, Martinez produced tax returns, deeds, excerpts from testimony at a prior
hearing, and over fifteen affidavits stating he and Ortiz did not have a common law marriage.
Martinez argued that the evidence established the absence of a common law marriage and,
conversely, Ortiz had no evidence to show she and Martinez had a common law marriage.
Ortiz filed a response. She also attached tax records, as well as two affidavits. Although
Ortiz’s summary judgment response identified the exhibits attached to her response, the two-page
response did not describe the evidence or argue how the evidence raised a fact issue. The tax
documents Ortiz produced show that Martinez referred to Ortiz’s child as his stepchild. The two
affidavits were executed by Ortiz’s brother and sister. The affidavits state Martinez referred to
them as his brother-in-law and sister-in-law, respectively.
The trial court granted Martinez’s motion for summary judgment without specifying the
grounds, and it rendered a final summary judgment dismissing Ortiz’s divorce petition with
prejudice. Ortiz filed a timely notice of appeal.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review summary judgments de novo. Cmty. Health Sys. Prof’l Servs. Corp. v. Hansen,
525 S.W.3d 671, 680 (Tex. 2017). “Where, as here, a trial court does not specify the grounds on
which it granted the motion for summary judgment, we must affirm if any of the grounds asserted
-2- 04-20-00408-CV
in the motion are meritorious.” Id. “Further, when the motion asserts both no-evidence and
traditional grounds, we first review the no-evidence grounds.” Id. “If the nonmovant fails to
produce more than a scintilla of evidence on the essential elements of a cause of action challenged
by a no-evidence motion, there is no need to analyze the movant’s traditional grounds for summary
judgment.” Id. at 680–81. To prevail on a traditional summary judgment motion, however, the
movant must show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because there is no genuine
issue of material fact.” Id. at 681.
COMMON LAW MARRIAGE
In Texas, a common law marriage has three requirements: (1) the parties agreed to be
married; (2) thereafter, the parties lived together in Texas as spouses; and (3) the parties
represented to others that they were married. See TEX. FAM. CODE § 2.401(a)(2). “To establish that
the parties agreed to be married, it must be shown that they intended to create an immediate and
permanent marriage relationship, not merely a temporary cohabitation that may be ended by either
party.” In re O.R.M., 559 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2018, no pet.). An agreement to
be married may be established by direct or circumstantial evidence. See id. Although cohabitation
and representations to others are relevant to show an agreement to be married, more is required to
prove the parties’ agreement to be married, which is a separate statutory requirement that “cannot
be inferred from the mere evidence of cohabitation and representations of marriage to others.” Id.;
see TEX. FAM. CODE § 2.401(a)(2) (requiring an “agree[ment] to be married and after the agreement
they lived together in this state as [spouses] and there represented to others that they were
married”).
Because Martinez filed a traditional and no-evidence motion for summary judgment, the
trial court was entitled to consider the no-evidence grounds first. See Hansen, 525 S.W.3d at 680.
Under our summary judgment standards, there was no need to analyze Martinez’s traditional
-3- 04-20-00408-CV
grounds for summary judgment if Ortiz failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence on the
essential elements of a common law marriage. See id. In her summary judgment response, Ortiz
merely showed that Martinez had referred to Ortiz’s family members as his “in laws.” This
evidence shows Martinez’s representations to others, but an agreement to be married “cannot be
inferred from the mere evidence of . . . representations of marriage to others.” See O.R.M., 559
S.W.3d at 744.
After briefly setting out the standard of review and procedural history, Ortiz’s response to
the no-evidence summary judgment motion simply identified exhibits attached to her response:
Non-Movant claims a genuine issue of material fact as to Movant’s common law marriage claim and requests an incorporation by reference of selected pages from Movant’s summary judgment evidence of his tax returns. Non-Movant also seeks to include the proposed Temporary Orders and Judge’s Notes from August 12, 2019. Furthermore, Non-Movant will also include two affidavits as summary judgment evidence, referenced in an appendix attached hereto, filed with this response and incorporated by reference for all purposes as if recited verbatim herein.
“When presenting summary judgment evidence, a party must identify the supporting proof that it
intends the trial court to consider,” but more is required. See Hinojosa v. Koen, No. 04-18-00907-
CV, 2019 WL 5773672, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 6, 2019, pet. denied) (mem. op.).
Attaching documents to a summary judgment response and “referencing them only
generally does not relieve the party of pointing out to the trial court where in the documents the
issues set forth in the motion or response are raised.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). “General
references to the summary judgment record are inadequate to meet the party’s evidentiary burden.”
Id. “When a summary judgment respondent fails to direct the [trial] court to specific summary
judgment evidence, a fact issue cannot be raised sufficient to defeat summary judgment.” Id.
(quotation marks omitted). “A trial court is not required to wade through the record to marshal a
party’s proof.” Id. Because Ortiz’s summary judgment response merely identified the documents
-4- 04-20-00408-CV
attached to her response and referenced them only generally, we hold the trial court correctly
concluded Ortiz failed to satisfy her summary judgment burden to respond to Martinez’s no-
evidence motion with evidence raising a fact issue that Ortiz and Martinez intended to create an
immediate and permanent marriage relationship, which is required for a common law marriage.
On appeal, Ortiz relies almost exclusively on evidence that Martinez presented in support
of his traditional summary judgment grounds, arguing she met her burden to respond to Martinez’s
no-evidence grounds. However, when a no-evidence summary judgment motion is filed and states
the elements as to which there is no evidence, the trial court “must grant the motion unless the
respondent produces summary judgment evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.” TEX.
R. CIV. P. 166a(i). And when, as here, a non-movant responds to a no-evidence motion for
summary judgment, does not produce sufficient evidence, and does not refer the trial court to
evidence produced by the movant, we may not consider the movant’s evidence in our appellate
review of the no-evidence grounds. See Dyer v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., No. 02-11-00046-
CV, 2012 WL 335858, at *4 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Feb. 2, 2012, pet. denied) (mem. op.)
(discussing Viasana v. Ward County, 296 S.W.3d 652, 655 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2009, no pet.),
and Landers v. State Farm Lloyds, 257 S.W.3d 740, 746 (Tex. App–Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, no
pet.)); see also Murray v. Hondo Nat’l Bank, No. 04-19-00408-CV, 2020 WL 5646931, at *2 (Tex.
App.—San Antonio Sept. 23, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that a no-evidence motion was
properly granted when the response attached evidence but did not identify what evidence raised a
fact issue). Because Ortiz failed to produce more than a scintilla of evidence on the essential
elements of a common law marriage, as challenged by Martinez’s no-evidence motion, there is no
need to analyze Martinez’s traditional grounds to determine whether he satisfied his traditional
summary judgment burden. See Hansen, 525 S.W.3d at 680–81.
-5- 04-20-00408-CV
CONCLUSION
Martinez filed a no-evidence motion for summary judgment that required Ortiz to respond
with evidence raising a fact issue as to the existence of a common law marriage. Because the
evidence Ortiz produced in her response failed to raise a fact issue as to all essential elements of a
common law marriage, which she alleged to support her petition for divorce, we affirm the trial
court’s judgment dismissing Ortiz’s petition with prejudice.
Irene Rios, Justice
-6-