in Re Aurora M. Alonso

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedSeptember 29, 2011
Docket01-11-00759-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re Aurora M. Alonso (in Re Aurora M. Alonso) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re Aurora M. Alonso, (Tex. Ct. App. 2011).

Opinion

Opinion issued September 29, 2011

In The

Court of Appeals

For The

First District of Texas

————————————

NO. 01-11-00759-CV

———————————

In re Aurora M. Alonso, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Aurora M. Alonso filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of her motion to set a hearing on her application for temporary guardianship of her mother, Aurora Ramos a/k/a Aurora Rodriguez.[*]    The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.  Relator has the burden of providing a sufficient record to establish her right to mandamus relief.  See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992).  “Although mandamus is not an equitable remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles.”  In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (quoting Rivercenter Assocs. v. Rivera, 858 S.W.2d 366, 367 (Tex. 1993)). 

Relator’s application in the trial court referenced only a specific hearing in connection with its allegation of imminent danger to the proposed ward.  See Tex. Prob. Code Ann. § 875(c)(2) (West Supp. 2010).  The petition filed in this Court asserts that the imminent danger extended beyond the specific date identified in the application filed in the trial court, but the record does not demonstrate that Relator amended or refiled her application to include this allegation, nor does it demonstrate that Relator made this argument to the trial court in any other way.  Relator’s failure to produce a record showing that she presented these arguments to the trial court thus precludes us from finding that the trial court committed a clear abuse of its discretion.  See, e.g., In re Jindal Saw Ltd., 264 S.W.3d 755, 767 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Massengale.



[*]           The underlying case is In the Interest of Aurora Ramos a.k.a. Aurora Rodriguez, An Adult; Cause Number 405,531, in Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, Honorable Christine Butts, presiding.

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

Related

In Re Prudential Insurance Co. of America
148 S.W.3d 124 (Texas Supreme Court, 2004)
In Re Jindal Saw Ltd.
264 S.W.3d 755 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2008)
Rivercenter Associates v. Rivera
858 S.W.2d 366 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re Aurora M. Alonso, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-aurora-m-alonso-texapp-2011.