Suday v. Suday, No. 04-23-00836-CV (Jan. 14, 2026)

Case details
Full caption
San Antonio. Maryvel SUDAY and The Estate of Olga Tamez de Suday v. Jesus Lozano SUDAY
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Texas (TX)
Court
Texas Supreme Court
Decided
Jan. 14, 2026
Disposition
Affirmed
Maryvel SUDAY and The Estate of Olga Tamez de..., Not Reported in S.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 100418Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.SEE TX R RAP RULE 47.2 FORDESIGNATION AND SIGNING OF OPINIONS.Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.Maryvel SUDAY and The Estate ofOlga Tamez de Suday, Appellantsv.Jesus Lozano SUDAY, AppelleeNo. 04-23-00836-CV|Delivered and Filed: January 14, 2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.From the County Court at Law, Val Verde County, TexasTrial Court No. 3625CCLThe Honorable Stephen B. Ables, Judge PresidingSitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief JusticeLori Massey Brissette, JusticeAdrian A. Spears II, JusticeMEMORANDUM OPINIONOpinion by: Lori Massey Brissette, Justice*1 AFFIRMEDThis is our fifth time considering appellant Maryvel Suday'sclaims in connection with her parents' divorce and propertydivision.1 On September 25, 2024, this court issued anopinion and judgment in this appeal.2 See Suday v. Suday,717 S.W.3d 441 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2024). In ouropinion, we dismissed Suday's appeal on behalf of the estatefor lack of jurisdiction because Suday was not an attorneyand could not represent her mother's estate. See id. at 444–45. We further concluded she had no standing to collaterallyattack the divorce decree between her parents—Olga Tamezde Suday and Jesus Lozano Suday—because she could notshow the county court's order dividing her parents' Texasproperty was void, rejecting her challenge to the decree onsubject matter jurisdiction grounds. See id. at 444. On June 27,2025, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed our opinion andjudgment as to the dismissal of the estate's claims, holding thatSuday could represent the estate pro se as the only beneficiaryand remanding the case to us to address the merits of theestate's claims. Suday SCoTx, 716 S.W.3d at 587, 590.Suday's arguments as executor are identical to her argumentswe rejected in her individual capacity.3 In essence, shecontends, because her parents were already divorced inMexico, the county court did not have subject-matterjurisdiction to grant the divorce decree. She asserts the trialcourt therefore lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to issue anysubsequent orders dividing property. She asks us to set asidethe county court's June 27, 2023 order denying a series of hermotions attempting to set aside the decree and the propertydivision on jurisdictional grounds. As we explained in SudayIV, even if the county court lacked jurisdiction to grant adivorce based on the prior Mexican divorce decree, the partiesstill needed to divide their Texas assets. An existing divorcedoes not bar a county court from dividing those assets for thefirst time. Suday IV, 717 S.W.3d at 444–45; see TEX. FAM.CODE § 9.201-.204; Busby v. Busby, 457 S.W.2d 551, 554(Tex. 1970); Supak v. Zboril, 56 S.W.3d 785, 795–96 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).4CONCLUSION*2 Accordingly, we reject Suday's contentions as executorand affirm the county court's June 27, 2023 order.5All CitationsNot Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2026 WL 100418Footnotes
Maryvel SUDAY and The Estate of Olga Tamez de..., Not Reported in S.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.21See Suday v. Suday (Suday I), No. 04-19-00832-CV, 2020 WL 6928447, at *6 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Nov. 25, 2020,no pet.) (affirming final decree of divorce of Suday's parents' divorce); In re Suday (Suday II), No. 04-20-00510-CV, 2020WL 7232130, at *1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio Dec. 9, 2020, no pet.) (denying mandamus petitions claiming trial courtabused discretion by denying request to supersede divorce decree without filing bond and directing sale of propertyand order of possession); Suday v. Smith (Suday III), No. 04-21-00279-CV, 2022 WL 789344, at *1 (Tex. App.—SanAntonio Mar. 16, 2022, pet. denied) (affirming trial court's order granting county attorney's plea to jurisdiction where,during the pendency of parents' divorce, Suday allegedly used violence against family members and threatened theirlives, county attorney moved for protective order against Suday, Suday then sought sanctions against county attorney);Suday v. Suday (Suday IV), 717 S.W.3d 441, 444–45 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2024) (dismissing Suday's appeal onbehalf of estate and concluding she had no standing to collaterally attack divorce decree), review granted, decision rev'd,716 S.W.3d 586 (Tex. 2025). Suday has a sixth case pending before us involving the dismissal of her will contest. SeeCase No. 04-25-00744-cv (Tex. App.—San Antonio). Suday has also brought a case in at least one of our sister courts.See In re Suday, No. 05-25-01490-CV, 2025 WL 3193777, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 14, 2025, no pet. h.) (denyingmandamus relief for inadequate record).2The factual background of this case is set forth in our previous opinions, as well as in the Texas Supreme Court's June27, 2025 opinion, and not restated here. See Suday v. Suday (“Suday SCoTx”), 716 S.W.3d 586, 587–88 (Tex. 2025);Suday IV, 717 S.W.3d at 442; Suday I, 2020 WL 6928447, at *1-3.3We note that we were unable to locate nearly all of the “caselaw” cited by Suday in her supplemental brief after anexhaustive search on a reliable legal database, and most of the caselaw appears to be fictitious. See, e.g., “Varela v.Varela, 464 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2015, no pet.)”; “Garrison v. Garrison, 966 S.W.2d 493, 495 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.)”; “Ex parte Hudson, 11 U.S. 225, 234 (1812)”; “Sabir v. Daud, No. 01-22-00956-CV, 2024WL 3478110, at 5 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 18, 2024, no pet.)”; “Douglas v. Douglas, 454 S.W.2d 225, 227(Tex. Civ. App.—Galveston 1970, no writ)”; “Woodard v. Andrus, 419 S.W.3d 226, 234 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2013, pet.denied).” Because most of it seems to be fictitious, it appears Suday may have used an artificial intelligence tool in thepreparation of her supplemental brief. While this could be grounds for striking the estate's brief, we choose to address themerits as referred to us by the Texas Supreme Court. However, we caution Suday and other litigants, as we have in othercases, that these tools, at present, lack the ability to produce reliable and accurate citations to legal authorities. See, e.g.,AGiza v. Franklin, No. 04-25-00099-CV, 2025 WL 2058089, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio July 23, 2025, pet. denied).4See also Jindrich v. Weihele, 656 S.W.3d 519, 525 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2022, pet. denied) (holding trial court had subjectmatter jurisdiction to issue order specifically apportioning former husband's benefits post-divorce); Ashfaq v. Ashfaq, 467S.W.3d 539, (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2015, no pet.) (affirming trial court dismissal of divorce action for want ofjurisdiction and treatment of remainder of pleading as post-divorce petition for division of assets, upon which trial courtentered judgment dividing assets).5Because we affirm the county court's order, we reject Suday's contention that, because the county court's order was voidfor lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the county court abused its discretion by granting Lozano Suday attorney's fees.See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Suday also contends in her supplemental brief we should remand to the trial court for recusal.But there is no order pending before us addressing a recusal motion, Suday largely cites fictitious cases in support of hercontention, and the issue is beyond the scope of our order granting Suday the right to supplement her briefing before us.See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1(i). We therefore need not consider the issue. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S.Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access