In Re: 1 Coventry Court, LLC, Moshe Feldhendler, and Leah Feldhendler v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: May 22, 2024
• Docket: 05-23-00456-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed May 22, 2024

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00456-CV

IN RE 1 COVENTRY COURT, LLC, MOSHE FELDHENDLER, AND LEAH FELDHENDLER, Relators

Original Proceeding from the 14th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-01541

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Nowell, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Nowell This original proceeding involves a contempt order signed by the trial court

on October 13, 2022. Because the parties are familiar with the underlying facts, we

provide only those details necessary to dispose of this original proceeding and issue

this memorandum opinion. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1.

1 Coventry Court, LLC and The Downs of Hillcrest Residential Association,

Inc. entered into a settlement agreement on April 26, 2022 resolving disputes

regarding property located at 1 Coventry Court. After relators failed to comply with

the settlement and the final judgment signed on June 30, 2022, the Association filed

a motion for contempt. The trial court held a hearing and subsequently signed a contempt order on October 13, 2022 and ordered relators to pay the Association

$15,000 in fines.

Contempt orders may be reviewed by writ of mandamus. In re Braden, 483

S.W.3d 659, 662 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2015, orig. proceeding). A writ

of mandamus issues to correct a clear abuse of discretion when no adequate remedy

by appeal exists. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex.

2004) (orig. proceeding); In re Autumn Ranch, LLC, No. 05-24-00255-CV, 2024

WL 1190480, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 20, 2024, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

Relators raise four issues; however, we do not address the merits of their

arguments because we conclude relators’ petition is barred by laches. Although

mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable

principles. In re Barnes, No. 05-22-00312-CV, 2022 WL 1955754, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Dallas June 3, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). One such principle is that

“equity aids the diligent and not those who slumber on their rights.” Id. (citation

and internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, delaying the filing of a petition for

mandamus relief may waive the right to mandamus unless the relator can justify the

delay. Id. “A delay of only a few months can constitute laches and result in denial

of mandamus relief.” Id.; see also Autumn Ranch, LLC, 2024 WL 1190480, at *1

(denying petition because of ten-month delay); In re Users Sys. Servs., Inc., 22

S.W.3d 331, 337 (Tex. 1999) (orig. proceeding) (concluding seven-month delay

precluded mandamus relief).

–2– Here, the trial court signed the contempt order on October 13, 2022, yet

relators did not file a petition for mandamus until May 15, 2023. Relators provide

no explanation for the seven-month delay in seeking mandamus relief. Accordingly,

we conclude that relators’ unreasonable delay bars their right to mandamus relief.

We deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

/Erin A. Nowell/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE

230456F.P05

–3–