How a Texas Court Enforced a Mexican Marital Property Regime
Overturning a trial court’s summary judgment, the Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso ruled that a Mexican “Separación de Bienes” marital property agreement must be enforced, affirming that principles of comity require honoring validity of foreign premarital agreements which were validly formed in their home jurisdiction.
In an increasingly globalized world, there is an increased demand for certified translation of official documents pertaining to international marriages, intercontinental marriages, transnational marriages. So too, there is an increased demand for certified translation of official documents pertaining to international divorces. When a marriage dissolves across borders, a complex legal question arises: which nation’s laws govern the division of property? A 2020 decision from the Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso, Fraccionadora y Urbanizadora de Juarez, S.A. de C.V. v. Delgado, 632 S.W.3d 80 (Tex. App. 2020), provides clarity and establishes a significant precedent for recognizing and enforcing foreign premarital agreements.
This case is more than a high-stakes divorce between two wealthy Mexican nationals; it teaches about conflict of laws, comity, and the strong public policy Texas places in favor of the freedom to contract before marriage. The court’s ruling reversed a trial court’s summary judgment, emphasizing that legal borders should not be used to invalidate validly of a prenuptial agreement entered into in another jurisdiction.
The Heart of the Dispute: A Mexican “Separation of Property”
The parties, referred to in the opinion as “Husband” and “Wife,” were both Mexican citizens from affluent families. They married in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, in 1996. A critical detail, which would become the central issue in the years-long litigation, was their election of a marital property regime. Under Mexican law, specifically the Civil Code for the State of Chihuahua, couples must choose at the time of marriage whether their union will be governed by a “Sociedad Conyugal” (community property) regime or a “Separación de Bienes” (separation of property) regime.
Their official marriage certificate, issued by the Chihuahua Civil Registry, explicitly stated: “MARRIAGE SUBJECT TO: SEPARATION OF PROPERTY.” This meant that, under Mexican law, each spouse would retain ownership and control of their respective property, and any income, wages, or profits generated from that property would remain their separate property.
The couple lived in Mexico until 2008, when they moved to El Paso, Texas, for safety reasons. In 2013, Wife filed for divorce in Texas. Husband counter-petitioned, seeking confirmation that his substantial assets—including interests in several Mexican corporations—were his separate property pursuant to the Mexican marital regime they had selected. The Wife, however, argued that no valid premarital agreement existed and that, upon establishing domicile in Texas, a community property state, the Mexican election became ineffective.
The trial court sided with the Wife. It denied Husband’s request to take judicial notice of Mexican law and granted a partial summary judgment declaring that no premarital agreement existed. The court effectively applied Texas law by default, a decision that would be scrutinized and ultimately overturned on appeal.
The Appellate Court’s Analysis
The Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso systematically dismantled the trial court’s reasoning. The appellate decision rested on two primary pillars: a rigorous Texas choice-of-law analysis and a finding that the laws of Texas and Chihuahua on premarital agreements are substantively similar, satisfying Texas public policy.
1. Choice of Law: Honoring the Place of Contract
The central legal question was whether Texas law or Mexican law should determine the existence and validity of the premarital agreement. The trial court had implicitly applied Texas law, but the Court of Appeals held this was error.
The court relied on well-established Texas precedent that premarital agreements entered into in another state (or country) should be evaluated under the law of that state or country. The reasoning is rooted in principles of comity and predictability. Parties should be able to rely on the legal framework under which they contract.
The court highlighted several factors favoring the application of Mexican law:
• The Place of Execution: The agreement was made in Chihuahua, Mexico.
• The Parties’ Intent: By choosing to marry in Mexico and complying with its mandatory regime-selection process, the parties implicitly chose to be governed by Mexican law for their property relations.
• Statutory Support: The Texas Family Code itself, in § 4.003(a)(7), allows parties to a premarital agreement to choose the law that will govern the construction of their agreement.
The Wife’s argument that Texas Family Code § 1.103 (“The law of this state applies to persons married elsewhere who are domiciled in this state”) mandated the application of Texas law was found to be misplaced. The court drew a critical distinction. While Texas law governs the divorce proceeding itself, the premarital agreement is a separate contract whose validity is determined by the law of the jurisdiction where it was formed. To hold otherwise would allow a spouse to unilaterally invalidate a foreign agreement simply by moving to Texas and filing for divorce, a practice the court was unwilling to endorse.
2. Public Policy: A Harmonious Alignment
A key hurdle in enforcing foreign agreements is the public policy exception—a court may refuse to apply foreign law if it is repugnant to the fundamental public policy of the forum state. The Wife’s position implied that the Mexican separate property regime violated Texas’s community property system.
The Court of Appeals soundly rejected this notion. It conducted a detailed comparative analysis and found that the laws of Texas and Chihuahua on premarital agreements are “quite similar.”
• Both jurisdictions authorize parties to convert what would otherwise be community property into separate property.
• Both jurisdictions allow couples to agree that income from separate property, as well as personal earnings and salaries, will remain separate.
• Both jurisdictions permit couples to enter agreements that preclude the acquisition of any community property whatsoever during the marriage.
The court cited seminal Texas cases like Beck v. Beck and Chiles v. Chiles to underscore that such agreements are not only permitted but are supported by the strong public policy of freedom of contract. Therefore, enforcing a Mexican “Separación de Bienes” agreement was entirely consistent with, not contrary to, Texas public policy. As the court poignantly stated, “it would not be against the public policy of Texas to enforce a premarital agreement properly executed in Chihuahua, Mexico.”
3. The Summary Judgment Error: A Material Fact Issue
Having established that Mexican law applied, the court then analyzed whether the Wife was entitled to summary judgment declaring that no premarital agreement existed. The summary judgment standard requires the movant (the Wife) to prove there is no genuine issue of material fact.
The evidence, however, was rife with factual disputes. The Wife, in a deposition, stated she did not remember the details of the civil ceremony or choosing a regime, but in a later affidavit, she flatly denied signing any agreement. The trial court had stricken these affidavit paragraphs as conclusory and contradictory to her deposition.
Meanwhile, Husband’s affidavit stated unequivocally that they selected the separate property regime, it was explained by the local official, and she agreed and signed the application.
Most damning for the Wife’s summary judgment motion was the document she herself attached as evidence: the marriage certificate, which plainly stated “MARRIAGE SUBJECT TO: SEPARATION OF PROPERTY.” Under the Chihuahua Civil Code, this certificate was the manifestation of the “marriage capitulations” required by Articles 93, 94, and 99. By presenting this Mexican marriage certificate, the Wife had inadvertently placed evidence central to her opponent’s case before the court.
The Court of Appeals held that, at the very least, this created a material fact issue as to the existence of a premarital agreement under Mexican law. The trial court’s grant of summary judgment was therefore erroneous as a matter of law.
Broader Implications and Lessons Learned
The Fraccionadora decision has significant ramifications for family law practice, especially in border states like Texas.
• Certainty for International Couples: The ruling provides much-needed certainty for binational and international couples. It assures them that their premarital agreements, validly executed in their home country, will likely be honored in Texas courts, protecting their expectations and financial planning.
• A Roadmap for Practitioners: The case serves as a practical guide for attorneys. It emphasizes the necessity of:
◦ Pleading Foreign Law Early and Properly: Husband’s amended motion to take judicial notice under Texas Rule of Evidence 203, complete with certified Spanish to English translations of the Chihuahua Civil Code, was instrumental to his success.
◦ Conducting a Choice-of-Law Analysis: Lawyers must not assume Texas law automatically applies to all aspects of a divorce involving foreign elements.
◦ Understanding Foreign Legal Systems: The case highlights the importance of understanding how other jurisdictions, particularly civil law countries like Mexico, formalize marital property regimes through official documents like marriage certificates.
• Reinforcement of Contractual Freedom: The decision powerfully reinforces the Texas judiciary’s commitment to upholding contractual agreements, including premarital contracts, even when they originate abroad. It aligns with the Texas Supreme Court’s long-standing view that such agreements promote “amicable and certain property relations.”
A Victory for Comity and Contract
Fraccionadora y Urbanizadora de Juarez, S.A. de C.V. v. Delgado affirms the principle that justice in a global context requires respect for the laws of other nations. The Texas Court of Appeals correctly refused to allow a parochial application of Texas law to invalidate a marital property regime that was not only mandatory under Mexican law but also fundamentally aligned with the contractual freedoms cherished in Texas.
By reversing and remanding the case, the court ensured that the central factual question—”Does a premarital agreement exist under Mexican law?”—would be answered on its merits, guided by the correct legal framework. In doing so, the court delivered a message that resonates beyond the courtrooms of El Paso: in the complex interplay of love, law, and borders, a promise made in one country should not be easily broken in another.
Get in touch with Spanish to English legal translators and court-certified Spanish interpreters at All Language Alliance, Inc. to obtain certified translation of Mexican laws and certified English translation of official Mexican legal documents for use in U.S. courts; to reserve a Spanish deposition interpreter for an on-site Spanish deposition, or for a Spanish video deposition via Zoom.
#alllanguagealliance #certifiedSpanishtranslation #Mexicanlaw #prenuptialagreementtranslation #Mexicanmarriagecertificate #certifiedtranslation #officialtranslation #premaritalagreementtranslation #contracttranslationservices #Spanishlegaltranslationservices
Up Next: Navigating Foreign Decrees: An Eritrean Divorce, an Italian Separation, and Texas Family Law