The Supreme Court of Texas kicked off its 2024-25 term this week with a highly contested divorce case involving questions of whether a guardian may initiate a divorce proceeding on behalf of an incapacitated ward and the effect of the ward’s subsequent death on the wife’s appeal of the divorce decree.
Under the court’s thorough questioning, the arguments veered from the dry text of statutes and case law to the existential meaning of marriage vows. The case featured practitioners at the height of their craft and covered the saga of a once powerful man whose dementia had rendered him unable to manage his personal affairs.
The court also heard cases during its first day of oral argument involving lawsuits against the cities of Houston and Austin stemming from high-speed chases and crashes involving police. On the schedule for the first week were certified questions from the Fifth Circuit in a lawsuit brought by a former student of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary who alleges the school failed to protect her from sexual assault and then defamed her. Another features a lawyer discipline case against the former first assistant attorney general of Texas over the state’s challenge to the election procedures of other states in the 2020 election.
The divorce case involves Laredo lawyer and businessman Carlos Benavides, who left a $32 million estate when he died a few days before Christmas 2020. He was a descendant of one of Laredo’s founding families and a practicing lawyer for 50 years.
The businessman, philanthropist and big-game hunter also expanded his family’s ranching and energy assets, founding Rancho Viejo Cattle Co. as a family office to benefit his children, according to a funeral home obituary. The notice said that Benavides had suffered for years from dementia and Parkinson’s disease.
The Supreme Court appeal was brought by Leticia R. Benavides, who became Carlos’s fourth wife in September 2004. Carlos filed a petition for divorce on April 6, 2005, but the petition was dismissed two years later for want of prosecution.
In September 2011, Carlos’ three adult children from his first marriage sought appointment of a guardian. One of those children, Linda Cristina Benavides, in 2013 was appointed guardian of Carlos and given the right to establish his domicile. Leticia claims that Linda then involuntarily removed Carlos from the marital home.
In 2018, Linda, who had been appointed guardian of her father’s estate in 2016, filed a petition for divorce on her father’s behalf and a trial court granted a non-fault ground for divorce.
Leticia filed her notice of appeal Dec. 8, 2020, and Carlos died Dec. 23 at age 84. After his death, Linda filed a motion to dismiss the appeal.
In February 2023, the Fourth Court of Appeals determined that Carlos’s death mooted Leticia’s appeal and affirmed the divorce decree and its disposition of the couple’s property.
Both sides had powerhouse representation during Tuesday’s oral arguments. Douglas W. Alexander of Alexander, Dubose & Jefferson delivered arguments for Leticia, while Richard R. Orsinger of Orsinger, Nelson, Downing & Anderson spoke on behalf of Linda.
Alexander discussed an issue of first impression: whether a guardian may initiate a divorce proceeding on behalf of a ward as opposed to merely continuing the prosecution of a proceeding commenced by the ward while competent is one of first impression. At the very least, he said, there needs to be a review of whether the guardian acted in the ward’s best interest and consideration of an affidavit from Leticia discussing the marriage and being kept apart from her husband.
The Family Code allows a court to grant a divorce in favor of either spouse if the spouses have lived apart without cohabitation for at least three years. Alexander said that was the only ground raised in the divorce petition after Linda had kept the couple apart for seven years.
“Linda made clear that she was seeking the divorce as soon as possible so that Leticia could not inherit under Carlos’s Will or collect on the couple’s joint bank accounts — the result of which would be that all of Carlos’s $32 million estate would be left solely to Linda and her brothers,” according to Leticia’s petition for review.
During his arguments, Orsinger said there was evidence that Leticia was not properly caring for Carlos and that the guardian ad litem appointed by the court agreed with Linda that he be removed from the home. Linda moved her father into a house next door to her and provided care.
Justice Jane Bland asked, “Who has the burden of raising the issue of voluntariness with respect to the divorce if it is something that a court can look at in determining whether a guardian can proceed with the divorce?”
“We have an adjudication from the guardianship judge that in 2013 Carlos did not have the mental capacity to make decisions regarding his marriage,” said Orsinger. “In our view, the guardian does represent the wishes.”
Justice Jimmy Blacklock asked about the sanctity of marriage and whether a judge could ever decide whether a person who is mentally incapacitated might have had personal, moral reasons not to divorce.
Orsinger said that would be denying wards or persons with intellectual deficiencies equal protection of the law. “Of all the people in society, they are the only ones who cannot get divorced,” he said.
The answer did not sway Blacklock.
“Part of the marriage oath is to support in sickness and in health,” Blacklock said. “Denying someone in that situation the ability to get divorced when they can’t make the decision to do so — is that a feature or a bug? I’m not sure.”
Both sides agreed that they would prefer the court address whether Texas will recognize guardian-initiated divorce rather than sending the case back to lower courts on jurisdictional grounds. “This state is begging for guidance,” said Alexander.
Orsinger said the court should not take Alexander’s invitation to lay down a universal rule.
“Is this the area where we want to lay down a universal rule for all people in all circumstances, or do we trust the guardianship judges like the legislature has and let them make a decision on the facts?” said Orsinger.
Issues involving Carlos Benavides’ 2011 will are pending before the court of appeals. “There’s going to be a ripe, hotly contested will contest once this is decided,” said Alexander.
Lawyers for Leticia Benavides include Sean M. Reagan of The Reagan Law Firm in Houston and Carlos M. Zaffirini Sr. and Guadalupe Castillo of Zaffirini & Castillo in Laredo. Lawyers for Linda Cristina Benavides Alexander include Edward Maddox of Benavides Maddox in Laredo, Adam Herron of Ruffner Schoenbaum Murphy in Austin and Judith R. Blakeway of Clark Hill in San Antonio.
The case number is 23-0463.