Rhonda Jean Fuller v. John Scott Defranco

Affirmed and Opinion Filed November 18, 2020
In The
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-19-01203-CV
RHONDA JEAN FULLER, Appellant
V.
JOHN SCOTT DEFRANCO, Appellee
On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial District Court
Rockwall County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 1-18-0724
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Evans
Opinion by Justice Nowell
John Scott DeFranco sought a declaratory judgment that there was no
marriage between himself and Rhonda Jean Fuller. Fuller filed a counter-petition
for divorce alleging the parties had an informal marriage that began approximately
on August 1, 2014. Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court entered a final
order declaring DeFranco and Fuller were never married to one another; the trial
court also entered findings of fact and conclusions of law. In a single issue, Fuller
argues the evidence is factually insufficient to support the trial court’s finding that
the parties were not married to each other. 1 We affirm the trial court’s final order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. General Overview
DeFranco and Fuller met in 2011 or 2012 on a dating website. Fuller and her
adolescent children moved into DeFranco’s house in 2012 or 2014. The parties lived
in the house together until they broke up in 2016, and Fuller and her children moved
out. Fuller and her children moved back into DeFranco’s house when the parties
reconciled later that year. The parties continued living together in DeFranco’s house
from late 2016 until February 2018. DeFranco and Fuller broke up on or about
February 14, 2018, and did not reconcile.
The parties both testified they never formally married and did not complete a
declaration of informal marriage with the county clerk’s office. They never
exchanged or wore engagement or wedding rings. Fuller did not change her name
or use the name “DeFranco” until after they broke up in 2018.
DeFranco’s and Fuller’s tax returns for the relevant years are included in the
record. They each filed as head of household each year; neither filed as married
1
Fuller’s sole issue states: “Did the trial court err in determining that the parties were never informally
married to each other?” Fuller does not provide a standard of review, but rather argues the trial court’s
findings of fact and conclusions of law are against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.
Based on the substance of her argument, we interpret her issue to be that the evidence is factually
insufficient to support the trial court’s final order.
–2–
during the years they were together. Each claimed their own biological children as
dependents, but did not claim the other party’s children as dependents.
Throughout trial, DeFranco maintained they had a “boyfriend/girlfriend”
relationship or a “domestic partner” relationship; Fuller maintained they had an
informal marriage beginning in August 2014.
B. Signed Documents Relating to Marital Status (2015)
DeFranco is a pilot for American Airlines, and the parties wanted Fuller to
have access to flight benefits. DeFranco testified he initially added Fuller to his
travel benefits as a “registered companion.” Fuller later realized her children and
mother could also have travel benefits if she were DeFranco’s “domestic partner” or
“spouse,” and DeFranco agreed to change Fuller’s status to domestic partner.
On April 9, 2015, Fuller told DeFranco that American Airlines limited
domestic partner status in the United States to same-sex couples. However, four
days later, she texted him: “I found the right forms and the AA policy to show that
we are domestic partners. Can I sign your name and send them in?” He responded:
“Yes but they might check the signatures. Is there a need to rush[?]” On May 26,
2015, she texted him: “We have to have an affidavit notarized to add me as a
domestic partner.” He replied: “Ok.”
The record includes a form affidavit that appears to have been prepared by
American Airlines. It was signed by DeFranco and Fuller and notarized on June 2,
2015. The first paragraph of the affidavit states: “That by mutual assent they entered
–3–
into a non-solemnized common-law marriage in the State of ___Texas___ on or
about ___08/01/2014___.”2 The affidavit further states that at the time of
contracting their common-law marriage in Texas, they had a bona fide intention to
create and enter into a legal marriage, they live together in Texas and hold
themselves out to the public to be husband and wife, and they recognize their
common-law marriage is as binding as a statutory marriage. DeFranco testified he
signed the affidavit to obtain flight benefits for Fuller; his purpose was not to
establish a marital relationship with her.
The affidavit does not have a Bates label indicating it was produced in
discovery. However, a substantially similar version of the document with a Bates
label showing Fuller produced it in discovery was also admitted at trial. The first
paragraph of the Bates-labeled version states: “That by mutual assent they entered
into a non-solemnized common-law marriage in the State of ___Texas___ on or
about ________.” DeFranco testified he did not know whether the date field was
completed when he signed the document.
DeFranco testified the date of August 1, 2014, the date on which Fuller asserts
they married and that appears in one version of the affidavit, was not significant to
him. They did not celebrate an anniversary on August 1 and he never associated the
date with their relationship. Until he saw August 1, 2014, in her counter-petition, he
2
The sentenced is pre-printed typed except for the word Texas and the date, which were completed by
hand.
–4–
did not know she believed they got married on that day. Fuller testified August 1,
2014, was the date she initially moved into DeFranco’s house.
DeFranco also named Fuller as the primary beneficiary of his American
Airlines-provided life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment, and personal
accident insurance policies; he named his children as contingent beneficiaries.
On April 14, 2015, DeFranco signed a document created by the Texas Health
and Human Services Commission titled “Declaration of Informal Marriage” in
which he and Fuller swore that on or about August 1, 2014, they agreed to be
married, they lived together as husband and wife in Texas after that date, and
represented to others they were married.
Fuller executed her will on January 17, 2015; the will was witnessed by two
people, including DeFranco’s brother, but not notarized. Under the heading “Marital
Status,” the will states she is “in a common law relationship with John DeFranco.”
The document names “my common-law spouse, John DeFranco” as an executor of
the will, leaves the contents of her estate to her “spouse,” and appoints “my spouse,
John DeFranco” as the guardian of her minor children. DeFranco testified he was
not aware of the will and did not recall seeing it until trial.
–5–
C. Text Message Communications (2015-2016)
Text messages3 in the spring and summer of 2015 show the parties discussed
breaking up and Fuller moving into her own apartment. DeFranco testified that
Fuller was looking for more commitment from him and she wanted to get married.
Date To From Content
5-13-15 DeFranco Fuller You don’t want a girlfriend. You’re not
looking for a future wife. You look at me as a
roommate.
5-25-15 DeFranco Fuller I want my boyfriend.
5-25-15 DeFranco Fuller You’re such an ASS when it comes to
anything regarding marriage. Trust me. I
know we aren’t married and that you have
zero intention of it. You wear it like a badge
of honor.
5-28-15 DeFranco Fuller You put more effort into making sure I know
that we aren’t married than you do dating me.
. . . You put more effort into being everyone’s
friend than you do being my boyfriend.
In June 2015, Fuller asked DeFranco if she could borrow money so she could
move into an apartment. On June 14, 2015, she texted DeFranco that her daughter
wanted to move to Forney, and Fuller could sign a lease the following day. The
same day she texted DeFranco: “What do you mean how? It’s simple. I move out.
We break up.” Fuller never moved out in the summer of 2015, and text messages
show their relationship continued.
3
Typographical errors are original to the texts.
–6–
In June 2015, Fuller sent a text message to DeFranco stating: “I’m sorry I
overreacted the other day. I don’t know why I’m so sensitive about that. It’s not
like I am upset we aren’t married. I guess just hearing your aversion to it makes me
feel like you must not love me.” In another text messages during the summer of
2015, Fuller referred to DeFranco as her “boyfriend” and, on August 30, 2015,
DeFranco told her: “I’m so sorry I hurt u and I’m truly sorry I couldn’t be the
boyfriend you needed. I love u Rhonda jean.” On September 18, 2015, Fuller texted
DeFranco:
When you asked us to move in, I viewed you as my knight in shining
armor because you were relieving me of some of that financial burden
. . . But when you started demanding that I pay rent, I felt so unwanted
and unloved because it wasn’t that you needed the money, you just
thought I owed it to you. Fair enough. From my perspective, however,
I saw a man not wanting to provide or care for his partner. I saw a man
wanting to pad his bank account at the expense of his partner struggling.
I saw a man that didn’t see me as a life partner or an equal . . . just a
roommate.
...
I still don’t know what our future holds. I love you, but I don’t feel safe
and secure. The way you shun any thought of marriage and the way
you talk to me like I’m still auditioning for the role is a slap in the face
...
Text messages show the parties’ relationship continued into 2016, and they
continued fighting. On February 14, 2016, Fuller texted DeFranco: “You’re right.
I am guilty. I’m guilty of letting you be a complacent boyfriend and letting you
think that it’s OK to not date me.” By May 2016, the texts indicate Fuller considered
moving out and asked DeFranco to help her pay rent, deposits, and moving expenses.
–7–
In June 2016, the topic of divorce was raised. The parties disputed whether they
were in a common law marriage and would need to divorce.
Date To From Content
6-2-16 Fuller DeFranco There is no divorce u fucking moron
6-2-16 DeFranco Fuller And, yes. A divorce is necessary.
6-2-16 Fuller DeFranco We have never told any one we r married as
a matter of fact I have told everyone I am
never getting married
6-2-16 DeFranco Fuller Well, we told AA and I have a notarized
paper.
6-2-16 Fuller DeFranco That is so u can get cheaper insurance. U r
a domestic partner not a wife. U r moving
out tomorrow.
6-2-16 DeFranco Fuller No. It stated we are common law. I have it
in the car. I’ll show you when I get home.
6-2-16 Fuller DeFranco That’s your scam. I didn’t agree to that
6-2-16 DeFranco Fuller Lol. No scam. You signed it and notarized it
when you were in love
6-2-16 Fuller DeFranco No I didn’t.
Fuller moved out of DeFranco’s house in the summer of 2016. During the
time they lived separately, Fuller referred to DeFranco as her “ex-boyfriend.” On
September 23, 2016, she texted him: “You are right that “we” get to define who we
are at this point. My definition of you is my ex-boyfriend. Not a fling or a booty
call or a friend with benefits. . . . You have made it very clear to me and everyone
you know that we no longer have a future together.” The following day she again
told DeFranco he was her ex-boyfriend: “And when did I say you were the perfect
–8–
boyfriend? I said you were the perfect EX boyfriend and we wouldn’t be going
through this if you would have been this nice and attentive earlier.”
The parties reconciled in the fall of 2016 and decided to open joint bank
accounts. DeFranco testified they had joint accounts “[b]ecause she said I wasn’t
committed to it and I was trying to prove I was committed to this relationship.” He
stated he “was committed to the relationship because we were going to get married.
We talked about getting married multiple times.”
In November 2016, they discussed publicly announcing they were back
together, their engagement, and a wedding.
Date To From Content
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller I’m off but it’s ok if we can’t go
I’ll put you back on when we are official.
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco We r official
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller Public official
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco Let’s do it now then. I ain’t scared
I’m serious
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller No.
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco Ok
When r u thinking
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller Honestly . . . when we’re engaged.
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller I want it to be a WOW moment when we
announce it so everyone knows we are the real
deal. Otherwise, we just seem like one of
“those” couples.
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco U want the WOW when we Announce we r
back together or we r getting married?
–9–
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller I guess I was thinking it would be the same
announcement.
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco Ok
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco But if we r getting married this summer it may
be hard to do.
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller Kinda what I was thinking. I think we can do
the engagement, wedding, honeymoon for 7 .
. . All for about $10,000.
11-26-16 DeFranco Fuller You do realize that $10,000 includes a
vacation for 7 people and a ring. That’s pretty
dang cheap.
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco Not a ring. I figured the ring would be a
minimum of 10. We have a sit load to talk
about.
11-26-16 Fuller DeFranco I’m really excited about this. I hope u r?
11-27-16 Fuller DeFranco I’m excited about marrying u and spending
the rest of my life with u.
I’m excited about spending more time with u
and doing fun shit and bringing my
girlfriend/wife to work
11-27-16 DeFranco Fuller I like hearing you say that stuff.
11-27-16 DeFranco Fuller I really need to hear that stuff to call that voice
in the back of my head that says this is just a
temporary thing because you were jealous
about me dating.
In December 2016 and January 2017, Fuller and DeFranco continued referring
to one another as “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” in their text messages. On January
17, 2017, DeFranco texted Fuller: “I look forward to calling u my wife instead of
my girlfriend I love u.” She responded: “That means a lot hearing that! I love
you!!!!”
–10–
D. Signed Documents Relating to Marital Status (2016-2017)
DeFranco’s signature appears on a Texas Hazelwood Act Exemption
Application, which allows a veteran or veteran’s child or spouse to receive a college
tuition exemption at Texas public universities, dated December 11, 2016. The
application was made on behalf of one of Fuller’s daughters who was applying to
college and shows the daughter is DeFranco’s child. DeFranco was not asked
whether he signed the document or Fuller signed on his behalf.
When DeFranco applied to China for a visa on December 30, 2016, he stated
he was married and listed Fuller as his “spouse” and “wife.”
On January 6, 2017, DeFranco gave Fuller access to his Fidelity accounts as
his “wife” and made her the primary beneficiary on those accounts; paperwork from
the Fidelity accounts shows Fuller was his “spouse.” His children were the
contingent beneficiaries.
DeFranco is a U.S. Army Reserve Officer. In that capacity, he executed
applications for military identification cards for Fuller and her children. The
identification card issued to Fuller is dated January 3, 2017, and states her
relationship is “SP.” Fuller testified she obtained the identification card as
DeFranco’s spouse and she could not have done so as his girlfriend. She testified
she and DeFranco went to a military base and represented to a military officer that
they were married. Also on January 3, 2017, DeFranco executed three “Application
–11–
for Identification Card/DEERS Enrollment” forms, one for each of Fuller’s children,
showing each child was his step-child.
Likewise, DeFranco obtained military license plates for Fuller. Fuller
testified DeFranco had to present documentation showing he was married to Fuller
to obtain the plates because the car was in her name.
On June 28, 2017, DeFranco signed a “Declaration of Status of Dependents”
form created by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The form shows he married
Fuller on June 2, 2015; he represented Fuller as his spouse several times on the form
and listed her children as his step-children.
DeFranco had a service members’ group life insurance policy. On October
15, 2017, Fuller, identified as DeFranco’s spouse, was made the primary beneficiary
of his policy and his children were the secondary beneficiaries.
Fuller testified DeFranco’s home was insured with USAA, and she was listed
as his spouse on that policy. Additionally, a “Record of Emergency Data,” a
voluntary form DeFranco completed with the Army, shows Fuller as his “spouse”
and his “wife.” The form shows his two biological children as his children; it does
not list her children. Fuller is listed as his beneficiary.
When asked to explain whether he lied to the military when he signed the
application for Fuller to obtain a military identification card stating she was his wife,
he explained:
–12–
So basically I was told that the wives and girlfriends could come
to the dining out in California, so I go, can they fly on the military
planes? And Lieutenant Clary is, like, no, they have to be in the
DEERS4 system.
Well, I made mention of that to Rhonda when I came home. She
goes, well, let’s put me in the DEERS system. I go, we are not married.
I am not putting you in the DEERS system. . . you have to have a
marriage certificate.
And so it became an argument between us, and it became a fight
between us, and I didn’t want to do it, and then I went ahead and
acquiesced, thinking, well, she is going to go over there, and they are
going to look at the document from a - - she goes, let’s use American
Airlines - - the document you signed with American Airlines and let’s
see if they will take it. And I’m, like, we are going to get married in six
or seven months. You know what? It probably won’t make any
difference, and now I don’t have to be the bad guy because they are
going to turn her down, and they are going to say, no, this isn’t a
marriage certificate.
...
So because the marriage certificate - - they don’t have a marriage
certificate. The army screwed up, too. We are both at fault here. They
should have never accepted the form that I signed with American
Airlines. It was not a legal form, and they are at fault, too. We are both
at fault. . . .
So when you asked me why I did this, this is why I did it, to help
her and her kids to get her on the passenger list so she could fly to
California. And when you asked me would I do it again, heck, no, I
wouldn’t do it again. Did I compromise my integrity? Yes. Okay.
Had I - - did I say specifically to them we were married? No. But did
I sign that stating that because of that form and they accepted it? The
army is going to take it. I’m good with it. The army does a lot of things
that I am good with and some things that I’m not.
In October 2017, Fuller submitted a Federal Student Aid application for her
daughter. The form shows Fuller’s marital status as “divorced or separated” and
lists the date she divorced her ex-husband, July 2011.
4
DEERS is not defined in the record.
–13–
E. Wedding
The parties chose a date and location for their wedding: June 9, 2018, at a
resort in Mexico. On July 25, 2017, Fuller completed a credit card charge
authorization form for the resort and selected the option that the couple would have
a “Symbolic (Non Legal)” wedding.
Fuller explained they were going to have a “civil ceremony,” but not obtain a
marriage license because they were already married. They were having the
ceremony because she wanted wedding pictures. She testified: “We were absolutely
common-law married”; “[h]e absolutely knew we were common-law married”; and
there was “no need” for a legal wedding.
F. Relationship Ends
On February 14, 2018, the parties broke up and did not reconcile. Fuller
moved out of DeFranco’s house.
After the breakup, Fuller sought to purchase a home. On June 29, 2018, Fuller
signed a Uniform Residential Loan Application. In response to the box asking
“Manner in which Title will be held,” she wrote “Single woman.” She also checked
the box for “Unmarried (include single, divorced, widowed).” She provided
DeFranco’s address as her “present address” and indicated she had been renting there
for 4.3 years. The Deed of Trust on the property, also dated June 29, 2018, shows
the borrower is “Rhonda Fuller SINGLE WOMAN”; Fuller signed the Deed of
–14–
Trust. Likewise, the warranty deed shows the grantee is Rhonda Fuller, a single
woman.
In August 2018, Fuller wrote several checks, including some to DeFranco.
The printed payor’s name on the checks is: “RHONDA FULLER IS NOT YOUR
WIFE.” She handwrote the named payee as “John DickFranco.” Fuller testified she
ordered the checks as “post divorce checks,” noting the date on the checks is about
a week after she filed her counter-petition for divorce.
G. Parties’ Testimony About Their Relationship Status
Throughout the trial, DeFranco maintained he and Fuller were
boyfriend/girlfriend, domestic partners, and “married on paper.” When asked to
explain “married on paper,” DeFranco testified:
that was because I had signed the documents stating - - you know, for
American Airlines stating we were common-law married, and that was
because that was the only document they required or they would take
from us because we couldn’t prove we were domestic partners. It was
all to become a domestic partner, and so anything - - that’s why - - I
signed a whole bunch of stuff like you have seen, and it was all to give
her and her daughters and her son benefits. Everything I have signed
was basically to give them benefits.
When asked whether he ever referred to Fuller as his wife, he testified: “Yes, I may
have. I don’t remember, but I probably have jokingly. . ..”
Fuller maintained the parties had a common-law marriage. She testified:
“John - - on our good days, you know, we were married, and he told the world. On
our bad days, he - - you know, he would try to say, oh, we are just married on paper,
–15–
you know, and that kind of stuff.” DeFranco promised her “we were married and,
you know, we were going to be together forever.”
FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Following a three-day bench trial, the trial court entered the following
findings of fact:
1. Petitioner and Respondent were not ceremonially married.
2. Petitioner and Respondent did not sign a Declaration of Informal
Marriage pursuant to Sec. 2.402 of the Texas Family Code.
3. The parties resided together from time to time between 2014 and
2018.
4. During some of this time[,] the parties mutually indicated to others
in the form of written documents that they were spouses.
5. The evidence supports a conclusion that the purpose of these written
documents was to obtain a financial benefit from Petitioners [sic]
employer and from Petitioner’s position with the United States
Military that the parties would not otherwise have been entitled to
as an unmarried couple.
6. During this time, the parties also indicated in other written
documents, such as income tax returns and loan applications, that
they were not spouses.
7. Also during this time, conversations between the parties through
numerous e-mails as well as other documents, reflected an
understanding that Respondent knew the parties were not married
and reflected her awareness that Petitioner had no intent or present
agreement to be married.
8. The parties had no mutual intent or agreement to be married on
August 1st, 2014 or at any time during which they cohabited.
The trial court entered the following conclusions of law:
1. Respondent had the burden of proving the elements of an informal
marriage, and that the elements were occurring at the same time.
2. The evidence presented by Respondent was insufficient to establish
the burden of proof that both parties mutually intended and agreed
to be married and thereafter lived together and represented to the
public that they were married, either on August 1, 2014 as alleged
–16–
in Respondents’ [sic] pleadings, or at any other time between 2014
and 2018.
The trial court entered a final order granting John DeFranco’s petition for
declaratory judgment and denying Rhonda Fuller’s counter-petition for divorce. The
order declares the parties were never married to one another. This appeal followed.
LAW & ANALYSIS
In a single issue, Rhonda argues the evidence is factually insufficient to
support the trial court’s finding of fact number 8 that the parties had no mutual intent
or agreement to be married on August 1, 2014, or at any time during which they
cohabited.
A. Standard of Review
“When a party attacks the factual sufficiency of an adverse finding on an
issue on which she has the burden of proof, she must demonstrate on appeal that the
adverse finding is against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence.” Dow
Chem. Co. v. Francis, 46 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. 2001). When reviewing the factual
sufficiency of evidence, we review all the evidence and will set aside the finding
only if the evidence is so weak or if the finding is so against the great weight and
preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and unjust. See id. In a bench
trial, the trial court is the factfinder and the sole judge of the witnesses’ credibility
and the weight to be given their testimony. Wright Group Architects-Planners,
P.L.L.C. v. Pierce, 343 S.W.3d 196, 199 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.); Interest
–17–
of N.A. F., No. 05-17-00470-CV, 2019 WL 516715, at *5 (Tex. App.—Dallas Feb.
11, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.). We may not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses
or substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, even if the evidence would
support a different result. Pierce, 343 S.W.3d at 199; Interest of N.A. F., 2019 WL
516715, at *5.
A trial court’s findings of fact have the same weight as a jury’s verdict and
are reviewed under the same standards that are applied in reviewing evidence to
support a jury’s verdict. See Catalina v. Blasdel, 881 S.W.2d 295, 297 (Tex. 1994).
B. Informal Marriage
Section 2.401 of the Texas Family Code provides that an informal marriage
may be proved by evidence that the parties “agreed to be married and after that
agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife and there represented
to others that they were married.” TEX. FAM. CODE ANN. § 2.401(a)(2). The
circumstances of each case must be determined based upon its own facts. Estate of
Claveria v. Claveria, 615 S.W.2d 164, 166 (Tex. 1981); Interest of N.A. F., 2019
WL 516715, at *4. The existence of an informal marriage is a fact question, and the
party seeking to establish the marriage bears the burden of proving the three elements
by a preponderance of the evidence. Interest of N.A. F., 2019 WL 516715, at *4
(citing Small v. McMaster, 352 S.W.3d 280, 282–83 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th
Dist.] 2011, pet. denied)).
–18–
Evidence of cohabitation and holding out the other party as one’s spouse may
constitute some evidence of an agreement to be married depending on the facts of
the case. Assoun v. Gustafson, 493 S.W.3d 156, 160 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2016, pet.
denied). Because in modern society it is difficult to infer an agreement to be married
from cohabitation, evidence of “holding out” must be particularly convincing to be
probative of such an agreement. Id. Holding out requires more than occasional
references to each other as “wife” or “husband.” Smith v. Deneve, 285 S.W.3d 904,
910 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2009, no pet.). A couple’s reputation in the community as
being married is a significant factor in determining the holding out element. Id.C. Analysis
The record contains a considerable number of text messages between the
parties that show they considered themselves boyfriend/girlfriend and not spouses.
Although Fuller contends the parties agreed to be married in 2014, several months
later, her texts to DeFranco show she considered herself to be his girlfriend. Her
text messages included one stating: “You’re such an ASS when it comes to anything
regarding marriage. Trust me. I know we aren’t married and that you have zero
intention of it. You wear it like a badge of honor.” Likewise, she accused him of
“put[ting] more effort into making sure I know that we aren’t married than you do
dating me.” These text messages are representative of many others in the record
showing Fuller knew she was DeFranco’s girlfriend, she considered him to be her
boyfriend, and DeFranco did not intend to get married. Although Fuller testified she
–19–
used the word “boyfriend” in texts to be “playful and flirty,” the trial court could
have determined Fuller was not being “playful and flirty” when she sent many of the
text messages complaining about DeFranco’s actions as her boyfriend and his
unwillingness to get married.
Likewise, when Fuller considered moving out of DeFranco’s house in the
summer of 2015, she told DeFranco they would simply break up and she would
move out. She did not express at that time that they were married and breaking up
would necessitate a divorce, which would have been necessary if they married nearly
one year earlier.
The use of girlfriend/boyfriend terminology in 2015 and 2016 in text
messages was followed by the parties deciding to plan a wedding after they
reconciled in 2016. In January 2017, DeFranco texted Fuller that he was “look[ing]
forward to calling u my wife instead of my girlfriend.” Rather than telling DeFranco
she was already his wife, she replied “[t]hat means a lot hearing that!” Although
they did not plan a wedding that would be legally binding, opting instead for a
“symbolic” wedding, they were planning a wedding in Mexico and could have had
reasons for opting not to make that their legal ceremony.
While there are numerous documents in the record in which DeFranco and
Fuller represented themselves to be married, the trial court concluded those
documents were created for the purpose of obtaining benefits only available to
spouses and did not reflect an agreement to be married. The trial court’s finding is
–20–
consistent with evidence in the record. With respect to the American Airlines
affidavit, DeFranco testified he intended to make Fuller his domestic partner so she
could enjoy flight benefits; his “[i]ntent was to get benefits from my employer.” The
same was true with regard to military benefits; he represented her as his spouse to
obtain benefits. He testified he did not intend these representations to mean he was
married. Additionally, the record includes documents, such as tax returns, in which
the parties represented they were not married.
In this bench trial, the trial court was the fact finder and sole judge of the
witnesses’ credibility and weight to be given to their testimony. We may not
substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. Considering all of the evidence in
the record, we cannot conclude the evidence is so weak or the finding is so against
the great weight and preponderance of the evidence that it is clearly wrong and
unjust. We overrule Fuller’s sole issue.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the trial court’s June 24, 2019 Final Order.
/Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL
JUSTICE
191203F.P05
–21–
Court of Appeals
Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT
RHONDA JEAN FULLER, On Appeal from the 382nd Judicial
Appellant District Court, Rockwall County,
Texas
No. 05-19-01203-CV V. Trial Court Cause No. 1-18-0724.
Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell.
JOHN SCOTT DEFRANCO, Justices Myers and Evans
Appellee participating.
In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s June 24,
2019 Final Order is AFFIRMED.
It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.
Judgment entered this 18th day of November, 2020.
–22–