BEAUMONT – A Texas court has denied an appeal from a woman who claimed fraud, breach of contract and violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act after her marriage was found to be a farce.
The Court of Appeals for the 9th District of Texas denied Noelia Ayala Sunesar’s appeal, instead siding with the appellees, George J. Prappas, Robert J. Conner, Barkat Ali Khoja and Sultan Ali Khoja.
Sunesar filed her original case in November 2010 after Prappas filed a final degree of divorce on behalf of Sunesar’s husband, Zulfikarali Jafar Sunesara (Jafar). Prappas had documents that had Sunesar’s signature which she claimed she never signed.
Sunesar married Jafar in 1997 so that he could become a citizen. It was later discovered Jafar had been married since 1989 in India, voiding Sunesar’s marriage, the suit states.
She tried to file for divorce but found he had forged divorce documents already, she claimed.
She also claimed her sister had taken her identification and signed the documents on her behalf without her knowledge. Conner notarized the document, but said “if Noelia’s sister appeared before him and had Noelia’s identification, he would have no way of knowing that she was not who she claimed to be,” the opinion stated.
Jafar died in 2004. Sunesar believed she would be his life insurance beneficiary but she discovered that Jafar’s uncle, Barkat Ali Khoja, was the beneficiary.
The court ruled in favor of the appellees, stating, among other reasons, Sunesar, “failed to prove that any of the appellees falsely represented a material fact to her regarding the divorce,” the opinion said.
The court of appeals upheld the trial court’s judgment, stating in the opinion, “Noelia failed to adduce evidence that any contract existed, that any of the appellees made a false representation to her, or that she is a consumer of services from any of the appellees.”
Sunesar petitioned for a jury trial five days before her trial date but was denied.
In the appeal, Sunesar claimed the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding her a jury trial. The court of appeals disagreed with Sunesar’s claim, stating that Sunesar’s demand was “untimely.”