In Re: Alfredo Joshua Loya v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: December 21, 2023
• Docket: 08-23-00348-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE: ALFREDO JOSHUA LOYA § No. 08-23-00348-CV

Relator. § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§ IN MANDAMUS §

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before the Court is Husband’s petition for writ of mandamus in the underlying divorce

suit. In the petition, Husband seeks relief from the trial court’s order requiring him to pay $50,000

of Wife’s interim attorney’s fees from a trust account. 1

Husband must meet two requirements to demonstrate he is entitled to relief by mandamus.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). He must

show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that he has no adequate remedy by

appeal. Id. at 135–36.

Husband argues that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in making the interim

attorney’s fees award, as it “without reference to any guiding rules, evidence, or principles of law.”

1 The order further states “said amount will be considered when the court determines the just and right division of the marital estate.” In his statement of the case, he asserts “[a]t issue here is a temporary order for $50,000 in attorney’s

fees to be paid with only three days’ notice and is beyond Relators ability to pay.” 2 He states that

the fees would deplete the community estate, rather than benefit the parties, and cause “irreparable

harm.”

Aside from his naked assertions and legal references regarding requirements to examine

Wife’s need for this amount of attorney’s fees and weigh Wife’s needs against his ability to pay,

Husband has provided no record substantiating his claims that the trial court acted arbitrarily.

Accordingly, we are unable to conclude that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.

As Husband has not established he is entitled to mandamus relief, we deny his petition for

writ of mandamus.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

December 21, 2023

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.

2 Husband’s petition notes that the trial court’s order gave him just three days to comply; however, this Court stayed the portion of the trial court’s order requiring the payment of fees pending the resolution of this mandamus action.