Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Rohini Malik v. Anupama Bhargava, M.D.
Citation: Not availableDocket: 05-13-00384-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; February 18, 2014; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Rohini Malik, both individually and as representative of Stephen Friedel’s estate, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Anupama Bhargava, M.D. and Hillcrest Clinic, P.A., following Friedel’s death from cardiac arrest. The appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing that Malik lacked standing to sue since she and Friedel were divorced at the time of his death. Malik contended that they had an informal marriage post-divorce. The trial court granted the summary judgment, concluding that no new marriage agreement existed before Friedel's death. Malik and Friedel had a ceremonial marriage on August 12, 2006, but divorced on June 9, 2008, citing financial concerns. Despite the divorce, they continued to cohabit, wore wedding rings, and presented themselves as a couple without informing family or friends of their legal separation. In 2010, Friedel listed Malik as his wife during medical visits with Dr. Bhargava, who treated him for respiratory issues leading up to his fatal cardiac arrest following a severe pulmonary embolism. Malik, along with Friedel’s parents, brought the wrongful death claim, alleging negligent medical care. The trial court ruled that Malik did not meet the legal criteria to pursue the claim due to the divorce status. On appeal, Malik argued that evidence existed to support a question of fact regarding an informal marriage, but the court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the summary judgment. The appellate review followed the standard for traditional motions for summary judgment, determining that Malik's evidence was insufficient to establish her standing as Friedel’s surviving spouse under Texas law. The movant for summary judgment must demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Evidence favorable to the non-movant is accepted as true in this assessment. To establish an informal marriage in Texas, three elements must be proven: 1) mutual agreement to marry, 2) cohabitation as husband and wife in Texas, and 3) representation to others of being married. In this case, while Malik and Friedel lived together post-divorce and represented themselves as married, the critical issue is whether they agreed to remarry. Evidence must show a present intent for a permanent marital relationship. Malik testified that their divorce was intended to resolve financial issues before remarrying, but she acknowledged there was no new agreement to marry after the divorce; their intent was to remarry once debts were settled, which remained unresolved at Friedel's death. Although other evidence, such as Friedel listing Malik as his wife on medical forms, might suggest an informal marriage, it does not create a factual dispute given Malik's direct testimony about their agreement. Consequently, the court concluded that no informal marriage existed, affirming the trial court's summary judgment in favor of the appellees. Malik's appeal was thus resolved against her, and the judgment was affirmed, with costs ordered to be recovered by the appellees.