holding that store was wife’s special community property when “unequivocal evidence” indicated that wife maintained full control over management and operations of store, no community capital assets were used to increase business, store was purchased with wife’s separate property, no debts were incurred by both husband and wife to finance growth of store, and store did not rely upon any community-owned real property
How later courts described this case
- holding that store was wife’s special community property when “unequivocal evidence” indicated that wife maintained full control over management and operations of store, no community capital assets were used to increase business, store was purchased with wife’s separate property, no debts were incurred by both husband and wife to finance growth of store, and store did not rely upon any community-owned real property
- holding that store was wife=s special community property when Aunequivocal evidence@ indicated that wife maintained full control over management and operations of store, no community capital assets were used to increase business, store was purchased with wife=s separate property, no debts were incurred by both husband and wife to finance growth of store, and store did not rely upon any community-owned real property
- holding that because a husband “maintained full control over management and operations” of his business and “no community capital assets were used to increase the business,” the business remained the husband’s solely managed community property
- holding that granting of new trial has legal effect of vacating judgment and returning case to trial court docket as though there had been no trial or hearing
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
YÁÑEZ, Justice,
concurring.
I write separately to note that the names of the Appellees may create some confusion. In light of the fact that this opinion is a legal document, I believe it is important to refer to the parties by their proper names. Appellee, Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez is referred to as “Fernandez”; his paternal last name is actually Ortiz. In Mexico, persons routinely use *660 their maternal last name following the paternal last name. In the U.S., it is customary to use a paternal last name as a person’s last name. In Mexico, Appellee Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez would be referred to as “Sr. Ortiz Fernandez”. In the U.S., he would be referred to as “Mr. Ortiz, Sr.” The same applies to Appellee Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada: he is properly referred to as “Mr. Ortiz, Jr.” as he is Mr. Ortiz, Sr.’s son. Similarly, Appellee Becky Ortiz is “Mrs. Ortiz” as she is Mr. Ortiz Jr.’s spouse. Consequently, we should refer to the Appellees as either “Ortiz-Fernandez” or “Ortiz, Sr.”; “Ortiz-Celada” or “Ortiz, Jr.”, but not as “Fernandez” and “Celada”. Since the beginning of immigration to this country, the U.S. authorities would arbitrarily “change” the last names of immigrants because the maternal last name was the last name in the series of names from their native country. Consequently, immediate family members ended up with legal names that were inaccurate. I concur with the result and analysis in this case but I object to the use of the maternal last names of appellees as they are incorrectly used as if they are their paternal last names.