Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided September 23, 2025·No. 15-25-00124-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00124-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 9/23/2025 8:33 AM Cause No. 15-25-00124-CV CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK Brian Beckcom § FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS § Court of Appeals ofAUSTIN, TexasTEXAS v. § 9/23/2025 8:33:43 AM § Fifteenth District CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk Texas A&M University §

Appellant’s Motion to Abate and Remand for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Summary of Relief Requested

Appellant Brian Beckcom respectfully requests this Court to abate this

appeal and remand this case to the trial court, with orders to prepare the

findings of fact and conclusions of law that he timely requested.

Background Facts

1. Appellant Brian Beckcom requested Appellee Texas A&M

University to provide him with documents in accordance with the

requirements of the Public Information Act.1

2. Texas A&M provided Beckcom with some records, but also

alleged several grounds for refusing to produce all responsive documents.2

1 App’x 10–11, 13–14. 2 App’x 53–70; 135–46.

-1- 3. Unsatisfied with Texas A&M’s responses, Beckcom filed a

petition for a writ of mandamus in a Bryan County district court,3 as the

Public Information Act requires.4

4. In response—and in lieu of an answer—Texas A&M University

filed a plea to the jurisdiction, challenging the trial court’s authority to

consider the merits of Beckcom’s petition.5

5. The trial court held a hearing on Texas A&M’s plea.6

6. Following the hearing, the trial court issued an order denying

Texas A&M’s plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing Beckcom’s petition—

with prejudice.7

7. Beckcom filed a request for findings of fact and conclusions of

law, as well as his proposed findings and conclusions, and a proposed order.8

8. Texas A&M objected to Beckcom’s request and his proposed

order, but also filed proposed findings and conclusions of its own as an

3 App’x 4–8. 4 Tex. Gov’t Code § 552.321. 5 App’x 19–43. 6 See generally RR 1–68. 7 App’x 585. 8 App’x 586 (request); 598–602 (proposed findings and conclusions); 604 (proposed order). Beckcom also timely filed a notice of past-due findings and conclusions. Id. at 618

-2- alternative.9

9. Beckcom responded to Texas A&M’s objections.10
10. The trial court signed an order sustaining Texas A&M’s

objections, in which it also “denied and disregarded” Beckcom’s requests.11

Argument

This Court should abate this appeal and order the trial court to

prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law that Beckcom timely

requested. The Texas Supreme Court has held that such requests are

appropriate in mandamus proceedings that originate in district courts.12 And

several of Texas’s intermediate courts of appeals have held that “an

appellant suffers injury from such a refusal when the circumstances of the

case require him to guess the reason or reasons the court ruled against

him.”13 In light of the issues that were pending before the district court, this

Court should conclude that its findings and conclusions are required.

9 App’x 588–593 (objection to request); App’x 610 (objection to order); App’x 605–09 (proposed findings and conclusions). 10 App’x 594–97. 11 App’x 616. 12 Anderson v. City of Seven Points, 806 S.W.2d 791, 792 n.1 (Tex.1991). 13 In re S.R.O., 143 S.W.3d 237, 242 (Tex. App.—Waco 2004, no pet.) (citing Beard v. Beard, 49 S.W.3d 40, 52 (Tex. App.—Waco 2001, pet. denied)l Chandler v. Chandler, 991

-3- Here, there is no question that Texas A&M responded to Beckcom’s

mandamus petition by arguing that (a) Beckcom “lacked standing” to

pursue this relief;14 (b) it produced documents responsive to Beckcom’s

request;15 and (c) its decision to withhold documents from Beckcom was

correct.16 The district court’s order dismissing Beckcom’s petition for a writ

of mandamus suggests that it agreed with Texas A&M’s argument that

Beckcom lacked standing.17 But its order expressly denied Texas A&M’s

jurisdictional plea.18 And because its order dismissed Beckcom’s petition

“with prejudice,” the district court’s order suggests that Beckcom petition

was incurably procedurally defective19—an argument that Texas A&M never

asserted in its motion or at the hearing.

S.W.2d 367, 389 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1999, pet. denied); Tex. R. App. P. 44.1(a)(2) (error requires reversal if it “probably prevented the appellant from properly presenting the case to the court of appeals”)). 14 App’x 40–42. 15 App’x 31–33. 16 App’x 33–34. Texas A&M also asserted other arguments that were ultimately mooted by Beckcom’s amended petition. Compare App’x 35–40 with App’x 577. 17 See, e.g., Paxton v. Am. Oversight, 716 S.W.3d 535, 548 (Tex. 2025) (requiring a dismissal of a petition for writ of mandamus filed under the Public Information Act if the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction). 18 App’x 585. 19 Cf. Univ. of Tex. Rio Grande Valley v. Oteka, 715 S.W.3d 734, 738 & n. 11 (Tex. 2025) (noting that a “failure to exhaust administrative remedies” would result in a “dismissal with prejudice”).

-4- This Court should conclude that the district court erred when

“denying and disregarding” Beckcom’s requests for findings of fact and

conclusions of law20 because, in their absence, Beckcom can only “guess the

reason or reasons the court ruled against him.”21 And as a result, Beckcom’s

undersigned counsel risks waiving arguments in this appeal by failing to

correctly guess which issues to present.22 Moreover—and perhaps more

importantly—this Court has no rational basis for determining which issues

Beckcom is required to present and the arguments he must raise to obtain a

reversal (or that Texas A&M must present to obtain an affirmance). For

example:

¾ Were Beckcom’s requests too broad?

¾ Was the information protected by state or federal law?

¾ Did Texas A&M demonstrate that responsive documents do not exist? If so, what burden of proof did it impose—and on which party—when making that determination?

What’s more, the district court’s determination—without

explanation—that Beckcom’s petition should be dismissed dismissed “with

20 App’x 616. 21 See note 13, supra. 22 Tex. R. App. P. 38.1(i).

-5- prejudice” also creates far more questions than the parties or this Court

could possibly answer without additional guidance. For example:

¾ If the district conclusion was based on the absence of existing documents, and Beckcom learns later that responsive documents have been created, can Beckcom seek production of them in the future?

¾ If Beckcom files a new records request using different criteria, does the court’s existing order now collaterally estop any requests for any documents that could have been the subject of the requests in this proceeding?

¾ Can Beckcom ever request records from Texas A&M again? If so, which ones? And if not, why?

In sum, all of these questions could have been answered—and

Beckcom’s appeal could have proceeded much more efficiently—if the

district court had complied with Beckcom’s reasonable request. Because an

explanation from the district court serves the best interests of this Court,

Beckcom, Texas A&M, and any district court that might consider

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University (Brian Beckcom v. Texas A&M University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda
133 S.W.3d 217 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett
164 S.W.3d 656 (Texas Supreme Court, 2005)
City of Dallas v. Abbott
304 S.W.3d 380 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
City of Elsa v. Gonzalez
325 S.W.3d 622 (Texas Supreme Court, 2010)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P.
343 S.W.3d 112 (Texas Supreme Court, 2011)
Texas Department of Public Safety v. Abbott
310 S.W.3d 670 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2010)
City of Garland v. Dallas Morning News
22 S.W.3d 351 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Bland Independent School District v. Blue
34 S.W.3d 547 (Texas Supreme Court, 2000)
Beard v. Beard
49 S.W.3d 40 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2001)
Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control Board
852 S.W.2d 440 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
Anderson v. City of Seven Points
806 S.W.2d 791 (Texas Supreme Court, 1991)
City of Houston v. Clear Creek Basin Authority
589 S.W.2d 671 (Texas Supreme Court, 1979)
Willms v. Americas Tire Co., Inc.
190 S.W.3d 796 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2006)
University of Texas v. Poindexter
306 S.W.3d 798 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2009)
In Re the City of Georgetown
53 S.W.3d 328 (Texas Supreme Court, 2001)
Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Knott
128 S.W.3d 211 (Texas Supreme Court, 2003)
Royal Independent School District v. Ragsdale
273 S.W.3d 759 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
State v. Zascavage
216 S.W.3d 495 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
PRAIRIE VIEW A&M UNIVERSITY v. Dickens
243 S.W.3d 732 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)