Pinto, Janeth Celis v. Timothy J. Brooks

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: October 24, 2002
• Docket: 01-01-00751-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

____________

NO. 01-01-00751-CV

JANETH CELIS PINTO, Appellant

v.

TIMOTHY J. BROOKS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 310th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2001-13935

O P I N I O N

Janeth Celis Pinto, appellant, appeals a default judgment granting a post-divorce division of marital property located in Texas. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Pinto and Timothy J. Brooks, appellee, were granted a divorce on June 29, 2000 in Venezuela. At the time of their divorce, they were residents of Venezuela. Subsequently, both Pinto and Brooks established residence in Texas. Brooks filed a petition for a post-divorce division of marital property located in Texas. Pinto was served with citation, but did not file an answer. Brooks moved for a default judgment, and the trial court conducted a hearing to determine the division of the property.

After the hearing, the trial court signed the final default judgment, which divided the previously undivided community assets and liabilities. Pinto filed a motion for new trial, which the trial court granted. Upon a motion by Brooks, the trial court set aside its order granting the motion for new trial, and Pinto filed a notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

In her sole issue on appeal, ⁽¹⁾ Pinto challenges the trial court's judgment on the basis that the Venezuelan divorce decree, a "non-translated Venezuelan Decree of Divorce in Spanish," is not a final decree.

A defendant who does not answer a lawsuit is deemed to have admitted all factual allegations in the petition except the amount of unliquidated damages. Holt Atherton Indus., Inc. v. Heine, 835 S.W.2d 80, 83 (Tex. 1992). The petition in this case alleges, "On June 29th, in the year 2000, a Final Decree of Divorce was rendered dissolving the marriage of Petitioner and Respondent." By her failure to file an answer to the petition, Pinto is deemed to have admitted that the divorce decree is a final decree. Accordingly, we overrule Pinto's sole issue.

We affirm the judgment.

Sam Nuchia

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Nuchia, Jennings, and Radack.

Do not publish. Tex. R. App. P. 47.

1. Pinto does not challenge the trial court's order setting aside the order granting a new trial.