# Montemayor v. Ortiz

> Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District · November 16, 2006 · 208 S.W.3d 627

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679155

## Case

- **Full name:** G. Xavier MONTEMAYOR and Franklin T. Graham, Jr., Appellants, v. Becky ORTIZ, D/B/A Schors, Appellee; G. Xavier Montemayor and Franklin T. Graham, Jr., Appellants, v. Jose Antonio Ortiz Fernandez, Jose Antonio Ortiz Celada, and Wife, Becky Ortiz, Appellees
- **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 13th District
- **Decided:** November 16, 2006
- **Citations:** 208 S.W.3d 627; 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 9963; 2006 WL 2022500
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Yanez
- **Judges:** Hinojosa, Yáñez, Castillo
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679155

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 proper…
- 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 proper…
- 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
- concluding the record supported an implicit finding of lack of unfair surprise when untimely designated expert was deposed pretrial

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9679155. Public record. Not legal advice.