In Re Guillermo Mercado and Minerva Mercado v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 08-26-00141-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS ———————————— No. 08-26-00141-CV ————————————

In re Guillermo Mercado and Minerva Mercado

AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN MANDAMUS

M E MO RA N D UM O PI NI O N Guillermo Mercado and Minerva Mercado filed a Notice of Accelerated Appeal on April

7, 2026, stating they were appealing from an “Order Granting Motion to Expunge Lis Pendens”

and contending this was an accelerated appeal authorized by § 12.0071(c) of the Texas Property

Code.1

On April 9, 2026, we notified the Mercados that it appeared the trial court’s order was

neither a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, and as such, we would lack

jurisdiction over the appeal. We informed them that the appeal may be dismissed if they failed to

show how this Court has jurisdiction over this appeal.

1 A file-stamped copy of the trial court’s order, filed in this Court with the Notice of Appeal, reflects that the trial court signed an order on April 1, 2026, expunging and canceling a notice of lis pendens filed by the Mercados. The Mercados filed a response on April 15, 2026, in which they asserted that “Texas law

expressly provides for appellate review of lis pendens expunction orders.” They alternatively

requested that, if we determined that we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we treat this proceeding

as a petition for writ of mandamus.

On April 21, 2026, we determined that we lacked jurisdiction over the attempted appeal.

However, we granted the Mercados’ request to treat their filing as a petition for writ of mandamus

and, because no petition had yet been filed, ordered them to file a petition for writ of mandamus

that complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3 by May 11, 2026. We also warned them

that this case would be dismissed if they failed to timely file a mandamus petition. To date, the

Mercados have not filed a petition for writ of mandamus.

To the extent the Mercados seek to appeal from the trial court’s judgment expunging their

notice of lis pendens, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Margetis v. Bayview Loan Serv.,

LLC, 553 S.W.3d 643, 645 (Tex. App.—Waco 2018, no pet.) (“Therefore, because there is no

statutory authority for an appeal of an interlocutory order expunging notices of lis pendens, we do

not have jurisdiction over this complaint.”); Smith v. Schwartz, No. 02-15-00146-CV, 2015 WL

3645862 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 11, 2015, no pet.) (mem. op.) (per curiam) (dismissing

appeal from interlocutory order expunging notices of lis pendens for want of jurisdiction); see also

In re Gaudet, 625 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding) (stating that “[i]t

is well settled that mandamus is the appropriate remedy when issues arise concerning the propriety

of a notice of lis pendens” and considering a challenge to an order expunging a notice of lis pendens

in a mandamus proceeding).

To the extent we construe this proceeding as a petition for writ of mandamus, the Mercados

have failed to file a petition that complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 52.3 and 52.7.

2 As a result, they have not shown that they are entitled to mandamus relief. See, e.g., In re

Hernandez, No. 08-23-00160-CV, 2023 WL 4146281, at *1 (Tex. App.—El Paso June 23, 2023,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.).

We dismiss the Mercados attempted appeal for want of jurisdiction. We conclude that the

Mercados have failed to establish a right to mandamus relief and deny the petition for writ of

mandamus in the alternative. We dismiss any pending motions as moot.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

May 15, 2026

Before Salas Mendoza, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.