(Vernon 1998) (establishing re-buttable presumption where common-law marriage is not proved within two years from date when couple ceased living together). We hold that Oravetz’s motion provided Amayé with sufficient specificity to afford her the chance to avoid summary judgment, notwithstanding the fact that his legal conclusion about the effect of the section 2.401 presumption was incorrect. Oravetz’s motion not only cited the proper section from the Family Code, it quoted directly from it. Indeed, in her response to summary judgment, Amayé argued that she intended to rebut the section 2.401 presumption “when her suit is heard on the merits.” Due the effect of the presumption, however, this was not an option. See, e.g., Temple I.S.D. v. English, 896 S.W.2d 167, 169 (Tex.1995) (<HOLDING>). The effect of a presumption is to force the
holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion holding that record compelled conclusion that telephoned threat came from persecutors in absence of evidence to the contrary holding that a statutory presumption is a rule of law requiring a trier of fact to reach a particular conclusion in the absence of evidence to the contrary holding that direct evidence if believed by the trier of fact will prove the particular fact in question without reliance upon inference or presumption holding defendant failed to rebut statutory presumption where evidence was not particular to the facts and circumstances of the case