----------------------------

VS
-----------------------------------
EXP. NUMBER -----------------------

CONTROVERSY OF THE FAMILY ORDER.

ALIMONY.

C. THIRTY-NINTH FAMILY COURT JUDGE

OF MEXICO CITY.

PRESENT:

------------------------------------, in my capacity as authorized representative of

the plaintiff in the above-mentioned family lawsuit, I appear to state:

That by means of the present document, I come to answer the unfounded

counterclaim formulated by the defendant in the principal, for which I do so in the
following manner:

PERFORMANCE:

A.- Regarding this benefit, action and right are denied; it is unfounded and
improper for the now counterclaimant to request from the -----------------------------,
the payment of provisional and, if applicable, definitive alimony; this in terms of the
answer that will be made in the chapter on facts.

B.- As to this benefit, action and right are denied; it is unfounded and
improper for the now counterclaimant to request from this family authority, the
securing of the C. ------------------------, of a sufficient and sufficient alimony; this in
terms of the answer that will be made in the chapter of facts.

C.- As to this benefit, action and right are denied; it is unfounded and
improper for the now counterclaimant to request the C. ----------------------, the
payment of expenses and costs generated by the present case; because in
application of Article 140, first paragraph, and sections V and VI, all of the Code of
Civil Procedures for the Federal District, this judge, due to the means of evidence
that will be presented at the appropriate procedural moment, will reach the
conviction of absolving this defendant from the payment of the expenses and costs
claimed, given the recklessness and the recklessness of the defendant.n of the
means of evidence that will be presented at the appropriate procedural moment,
will reach the conviction of absolving the now counterclaimed from the payment of
expenses and costs claimed, given the recklessness and bad faith with which the
C. ------------------------- which are evident from the narration of the Facts of this
counterclaim, as well as the notorious inadmissibility of the present counterclaim.

As to the Facts, they are answered as follows:

I.- This fact that is being contested is true.

II.- This fact that is being contested is true.

III.- This fact that is being contested is false; it is considered as such

because the counterclaimant states in this section, UNDER PROVERSION OF
TRUTH, that his company named ---------------------------, SAPI DE C.V., has not
generated nor produced income during the course of the present year (2018),
which, according to his statement, he proves with declarations made to the Tax
Administration Service, which he presented before this jurisdictional authority in
writing on May 17, 2018; the false is actualized, with the same express confession
made by the counterclaimant in the present case, which, according to his
statement, is the same as the one made by the counterclaimant in the present year
(2018).The false is actualized, with the same express confession made by the
counterclaimant, but in his capacity as founding partner of the above mentioned
company, when he answered the prevention made by this family court by order of
April 16, 2018, in what concerns us, that the mercantile negotiation in question
was founded by C. --------------------------- on November 20, 2014, being implausible
and therefore false, that since this date the company owned by the now
counterclaimant has not produced or generated income until now, because if in the
present case, what the counterclaimant seeks is to demonstrate that he has no
income at all that allows him to subsist, which in turn translates into an apparent
state of food need, so that in the end this authority of knowledge recognizes him
the right to the alimony that he is now counterclaiming, for this he was also able to
demonstrate it with the presentation of the evidence that he has no income at all
that allows him to subsist, which in turn translates into an apparent state of food
need, so that in the end this authority of knowledge recognizes him the right to the
alimony that he is now counterclaiming.The petitioner was also in a position to
prove it with the presentation of the tax returns of the companyThe only thing he
can demonstrate is that his mercantile negotiation has not generated any income
so far in 2018, and not since November 20, 2014, so that it could be verified that in
truth said establishment has not generated any income at all; but by not doing so, it
is noticed that the only thing that the counterclaimant seeks is to obtain an undue
profit, claiming from the plaintiff in the principal the payment of alimony, pretending
to surprise this authority of knowledge with his proceeding, making evident the bad
faith and malice with which he conducts and with which he counterclaimed the C.
------------------------------.

4.- This fact that is contested, is false; in reason that although, as the
counterclaimant alleges, we sold motu proprio to our son named
-------------------------------, the one located at ----------------------------------, on
September 21, 2017; it is also true that the now counterclaimant, "forgets to
mention", that from that purchase and sale he received the amount of $588,000.00
(five hundred eighty eight thousand pesos 00/100 M.N.); which will be accredited at
the opportune procedural moment, again evidencing the bad faith with which the
counterclaimant conducts himself.

Also refer to C. ---------------------------------textually, the following: "...I state

that both parties agreed that we would use said amount to start our own
business to meet our personal needs and thus obtain profits to subsist,
which my counterpart does not mention in any of his facts what use he made
of the capital he received from the sale of the real estate...."; from the above
we can see the incongruence and implausibility of the counterclaimant's statement,
as well as the bad faith and malice with which he conducts himself in the present
matter, since, on the one hand, he states that the parties now in dispute "agreed"
that the amount obtained from the aforementioned sale and purchase would be
used to start their own business so that "both" would satisfy their personal needs
and generate profits - not only for the benefit of C. ----------------------, but for both
parties-, and in another, refers that the plaintiff in the principal is omitted in
mentioning what use she gave to the capital of merit -understanding that now the
counterclaimant was the only one who received in her benefit the money of the
transaction-; hence, that the declarations of the counterclaimant are false, although
she makes UNDER OATH OF TRUTH before this authority of the family
court.Hence, the falsity of the counterclaimant's statements is proven, despite the
fact that he makes them UNDER OATH OF TRUTH before this family authority, as
well as the bad faith and evident malice with which the C. --------------------------.

5.- This fact is neither affirmed nor denied, given that it is not a fact proper to
the now defendant; but it is not an obstacle to the above, that this H. Authority of
knowledge to consider as an express confession, on the part of the plaintiff, what
he indicates in this section, that he currently rents the apartment he refers to
therein, for the amount of $4,400.00 (four thousand pesos 00/100 M.N.) per
month, which translates into the fact that the C. ---------------------------------------,
somehow has the economic solvency to maintain the aforementioned lease, as
well as to cover the basic and minimum accessory expenses (water, electricity,
property tax); which contradicts what is also alleged in its fact number 3, that it
does not have any income at all, because its company ------------------, SAPI DE
C.V., has not generated any economic benefits either; hence, the falsity of the
counterclaimant's statements is proven, notwithstanding the fact that he makes
them UNDER OATH TO SAY THE TRUTH before this family authority, as well as
the bad faith and evident malice with which C. -----------------------.

Regardless of all of the above, this H. Authority of merit, to consider each

and every one of the facts set forth in his counterclaim as inadmissible, because as
can be seen from them, it is only limited to establish, essentially, that: 1.- his
company ----------------------, -------------- DE C.V., has not generated any income
since it began its activities; 2. that the now defendant ---------------------- received an
amount of money for the purchase and sale that the disputing parties made of a
real estate property to her son -------------------------------------, capital of which the
said defendant does not give any account, and that with said money the now
counterclaimant is self-sufficient to cover her expenses; and 3.- that the
counterclaimant currently rents an apartment for the amount of $4,400.00 (four
thousand pesos 00/100) per month; without expressing and motivating in the
same, the reason for his right to have the counterclaimant pay him alimony, it being
clear from the facts themselves thatl C. -------------------------------------, contests
again the main claim, because it states that it is in a state of insolvency that does
not allow it to comply with its obligation to pay maintenance to C. ----------------------;
failing to comply with the provisions of Article 255, Section V of the Code of Civil
Procedures for the Federal District (now Mexico City)1.

Finally, the above is supported by thesis 1a. XXXIV/2014 (10a.),

pronounced by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation,
with registry number 2005535; whose heading and text read:

1
Article 255. Every judicial proceeding, whether principal or incidental, shall be commenced by a complaint,
which shall
expressed:
I. The court before which it is promoted;
II. The name and surname of the plaintiff and the address to be notified;
III. The defendant's name and address;
IV. The object or objects to be claimed, with their accessories;
V. The facts on which the plaintiff bases his petition, in which he shall specify the documents
public or private that are related to each event, as well as whether or not he has them at his disposal.
disposition. It will also provide the names and surnames of the witnesses who will be present.
witnessed the relative facts.
It must also number and narrate the facts, stating them succinctly, clearly and clearly, and
accuracy; (
...)
 INCIDENTS, APPEALS OR PROMOTIONS THAT ARE NOTORIOUSLY
MALICIOUS OR IMPROPER. ITS CONNOTATION. Article 57 of the Federal Code
of Civil Procedure provides that the courts will never admit incidents, appeals or
motions that are notoriously malicious or improper, and that they will dismiss them
out of hand, without the need to inform the other parties, nor to transfer them or
form an article. In this regard, the malice in the promotions is present when in them
the bad faith of the promoter is identified, for example, when he seeks to delay the
execution of some resolution or to avoid that a judicial decision is materialized; on
the other hand, the notorious impropriety is configured when from the simple
reading of the promoIn the same way, the notorious inadmissibility is configured
when the simple reading of the request shows in a patent and absolutely clear way
the certainty and full conviction that the admission or acceptance of the request will
not give rise to a different decision from the one that can be taken from the outset;
so that what the mentioned article tries to avoid is the processing of a motion that
is idle.In such circumstances, the prior hearing of the interested party is not
indispensable, nor is the admission of the request, since it would be useless to
process it because it lacks the necessary legal basis, since it lacks the necessary
legal basis.In such circumstances, it is not indispensable to previously hear the
interested party or to admit its promotion, because it is useless to process it due to
the lack of the corresponding subjective or procedural right, because of the
inadmissibility of the petition formulated within the respective procedure, this, in
order to observe the principles of promptness and procedural expeditiousness
contained in Article 17, second paragraph, of the Political Constitution of the
United Mexican States.

In relation to the PROVISIONAL MEASURES section, the following is stated:

It is totally improper and incongruent, what the counterclaimant plaintiff

requests, in the sense that a provisional alimony be fixed to the defendant,
because on the one hand he refers, again UNDER PROOF OF PROVING THE
TRUTH, that it is known to the now plaintiff that the defendant has her own work
activity, but not knowing for whom she works, then, does the defendant have her
own work or is she employed by someone else? being thus evident how
NOTORIOUSLY IMPROCEDENT AND MALICIOUS THIS COUNTERCLAIMER
IS; in that order of ideas, in the case without conceding, it is the evidentiary burden
of the counterclaimant ----------------------, to demonstrate reliably that the now
counterclaimant has a source of income -which in the present case is not so-, and
it will be demonstrated in the trial. and it will be demonstrated in the original trial-;
from which it is evident once again, the bad faith and malice with which C.
----------------------, both did with the C. ----------------------, and before this H. Authority
of the family.

Regarding the chapter on EVIDENCE, it is stated:

The scope and probative value of each and every one of the means of proof
offered by the counterclaimant are objected to in a general manner.

Specifically objection is made to evidence number 2, consisting of

TESTIMONIAL evidence in charge of ----------------------, since it was not offered in
accordance with the law, since said witnesses, as stated by C. ----------------, relates
them with each and every one of the facts of his counterclaim, when from the
simple reading of the same, it is not evident that any mention is made that the
above mentioned persons have witnessed each and every one of the facts that he
narrates in his counterclaim; thus contravening the provisions of article 255,
section V of the Civil Adjective Code for the Federal District, now Mexico City;
hence the inadmissibility of this testimonial evidence.This is in contravention of
Article 255, Section V of the Civil Code for the Federal District, now Mexico City;
hence the inadmissibility of this testimonial evidence.

The evidence number 4 consisting of JUDICIAL INSPECTION is especially

objected to, since it was not offered in accordance with the law, given that although
it indicates the points on which said evidence should be based, it is also true that it
does not indicate the location where the judicial inspection test will take place, that
is, the domicile of the alleged business called "esthetics" owned by the C. Although
it indicates the points on which said evidence should be based, it is also true that it
does not indicate the location where the judicial inspection test will take place, that
is, the domicile of the alleged business called "aesthetics" owned by C.
---------------------- -which is false, as will be proven at the appropriate procedural
moment-, because notwithstanding the fact that indicating the domicile is not
contemplated in Article 297 of the Code of Civil Procedures for the Federal District,
now Mexico City, C. ----------------------, tries to revert in bad faith to the respondent
here, an evidentiary burden that clearly corresponds to the counterclaimant
himself, that is, to demonstrate his assertion that the counterclaimant owns a
mercantile negotiation of his property, which in the present case, would mean that
the counterclaimant has the procedural obligation to prove a false fact, that is, that
she is the owner of the establishment that the counterclaimant here claims to have.
In one more, it is procedural fatigue by virtue of the common law, that when the
judicial inspection is offered as in this case, each and every one of the necessary
elements for the due performance of the same must be indicated, including the
domicile where the referred means of evidence must take effect, which in this case
the counterclaimant did not do; therefore, the judicial inspection that is objected to
is inadmissible.

They are opposed as EXCEPTIONS AND DEFENSES:

1.- OBSCURITY OF DEMAND.

2.- FALSE DECLARATIONS.

3.- IMPRECISION IN THE PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM.

4.- THAT OF PLUS PETITIO.

5.- THE UNLAWFULNESS OF THE ACTION AND RIGHT.

6.- EXCEPTION OF SINE ACTIO AGIS - Consists in the fact that the
plaintiff does not have the procedural right to urge the jurisdictional organ to
resolve in its favor.

LAW.

The following are offered as means of EVIDENCE:

1.- CONFESSIONAL by ---------------------- ....

2.- TESTIMONIAL by FERNANDO IVÁN ....

3.- PUBLIC DOCUMENTATION consisting of a report rendered by SAT ...

PUBLIC DOCUMENTARY consisting of the report submitted by the CNBV....

PUBLIC DOCUMENTARY consisting of a simple copy of BANK TRANSFERS....

6.-

Derived from the foregoing to You C. Judge, I kindly request your attention:

FIRST.- To consider myself as having been presented in terms of the

present motion, having timely and satisfactorily complied with the hearing ordered
by order dated June 5, 2018 and published in the judicial gazette on June 6 of the
same month and year.

SECOND.- Please take into consideration the manifestations that are made
and consequently certify the express confession that derives from the statement of
defense, as well as the contradictions in which the defendant incurs.

THIRD.- To consider me as objecting to each and every one of the proofs

offered by the defendant, with the exception of those that are made my own in
application of the principle of procedural acquisition; once everything requested
has been declared admissible, determine what in law corresponds.

I PROTEST WHAT IS NECESSARY.

_____________________________