in the Matter of the Marriage of Angelina Sandoval and Angel Sandoval and in the Interest of A.M.S., a Child ( 2019 )

IN THE
TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10-17-00108-CV
IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF
ANGELINA SANDOVAL AND ANGEL SANDOVAL
AND IN THE INTEREST OF A.M.S., A CHILD
From the 378th District Court
Ellis County, Texas
Trial Court No. 93422D
DISSENTING OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
This may be the second-best motion for rehearing that I have considered in over
20 years on this appellate bench.1 In this motion, the appellant directs the Court to the
specific evidence relevant to why the appellee had to know, not only that the appellant,
which is her husband, was not in the United States, but also where he was living in
Mexico. He had left the United States five years earlier; he had not returned; and they
had a three-year-old child of the marriage—absent immaculate conception, his wife
necessarily had to have been with him in Mexico. I would request a response, as we must
1
The best remains Fagan v. Crittenden, 166 S.W.3d 748 (Tex. App.—Waco 2005, order) (C.J., Gray,
dissenting).
before granting relief on a motion for rehearing, see TEX. R. APP. P. 49.2, to more fully
address why the failure to comply with the Hague Convention trumps the purported
compliance with an alternate method of service.2 Moreover, in the motion for rehearing,
the appellant lays out a compelling case for granting a new trial under the Craddock
test. See Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (Tex. 1939).
I would request a response to the motion for rehearing with a view to granting
relief and remanding this proceeding for a new trial. The ability to take a house from a
non-resident of the United States of America by failing to clearly and strictly comply with
international treaties and our laws and rules regarding service of process should not be
affirmed.
Accordingly, I respectfully, but strongly, dissent to continuing this miscarriage of
justice.
TOM GRAY
Chief Justice
Dissenting opinion issued and filed October 15, 2019
2
I dissented from the original opinion of the Court because I do not believe that the appellee has proved
valid compliance for use of an alternate method for service of process. That is still my opinion.
In the Matter of the Marriage of Sandoval and In the Interest of A.M.S Page 2