in Re David Elliott
This text of in Re David Elliott (in Re David Elliott) 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.
Opinion
In The
Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont _________________ NO. 09-15-00262-CV _________________
IN RE DAVID ELLIOTT
________________________________________________________________________
Original Proceeding ________________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
David Elliott petitioned for a writ of mandamus compelling the 356th
District Court of Hardin County, Texas, to vacate the temporary orders signed on
June 25, 2015, in a recently-commenced divorce case. See generally Tex. Gov’t
Code Ann. § 22.221 (West 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Elliott asks this
Court to compel the trial court to sign temporary orders that provide for a standard
possession order that includes summer visitation and additional “makeup
visitation” in Virginia where he resides. Elliott filed a motion requesting that this
Court award him a six-week visitation period in Virginia and additional visitation
for missed Spring visitation previously agreed to by the parties, as temporary relief pending the determination of the merits of his mandamus petition. See generally
Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a).
Elliott contends there is insufficient evidence in the record of the hearing on
temporary orders to rebut the presumption that a standard possession order should
be entered. See generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. §§ 105.001(g); 153.252 (West
2014). After considering the mandamus petition and the response filed by the real
party in interest, the temporary nature of the orders at issue, and the records
submitted by the parties for review by this Court (which does not include
everything the trial court considered in reaching the decision regarding the
temporary orders at issue), we conclude that the relator has not established that the
trial court clearly abused its discretion. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 153.253 (West
2014). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus and the motion for
temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Submitted on July 15, 2015 Opinion Delivered July 24, 2015
Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
in Re David Elliott, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-david-elliott-texapp-2015.