Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:This appeal arises from a bill of review proceeding filed by a child, J.A., which set aside certain provisions of a divorce decree between her parents, Nancy and David Carrasco. J.A. essentially alleged that an erroneous parentage determination contained in the decree of divorce was rendered as a result of her mother’s fraud and that as a result, she had not benefitted from her true father’s love, affection, nurture, shelter, economic support and health insurance. The challenged decree adjudicated J.A.’s parentage, specifying that David was her father. Although Nancy had told her attorney before the divorce proceedings that Luis Oropeza was J.A.’s father, the attorney allegedly told her not to say anything. When Nancy and her lawyer appeared in court to obtain the default divorce judgment, Nancy did not tell the judge that J.A. was not David’s daughter. In granting the bill of review, the trial court found that fraud was perpetrated in the divorce proceeding. It further found that Oropeza had no standing because he was not a party to the divorce. No findings of fact were requested or filed. Oropeza appeals, joining J.A. as a co-appellant. HOLDING:The court dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction. J.A. filed her bill of review through a court-appointed attorney ad litem. The court notes that she has not perfected her own appeal, nor has she in any manner contested the rulings of the trial court which granted the relief she was seeking. The court points out that Oropeza may not pursue an appeal on behalf of the child because he lacks the legal authority to do so. The court therefore considers him to be the sole appellant. Nancy and David filed a joint brief in their role as appellees. The court next addresses their argument that Oropeza lacks standing to appeal the judgment below. The court agrees that Oropeza has no standing because he was not a party to the Carrasco divorce and the judicial relief obtained thus far has imposed no obligation upon him. The court notes that an appellant may not complain of errors that merely affect the rights of others. The court holds that Oropeza will have standing only in the paternity suit that is still pending in the trial court. The court expresses no opinion upon the viability of any claims that may be asserted against him or the availability of any defenses he might raise. OPINION:McClure, J.; Barajas, C.J., McClure and Chew, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.