In Re Julia Ann Poff v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00301-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00301-CV __________________

IN RE JULIA ANN POFF

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding County Court at Law No. 2 of Liberty County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23DC-CV-00103 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Julia Ann Poff seeks to compel the trial

court to vacate an order denying a motion to transfer venue in a suit affecting the

parent-child relationship and transfer the case to Montgomery County.1 See

generally Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 103.002(a) (“If venue of a suit is improper in the

court in which an original suit is filed and no other court has continuing, exclusive

1 Poff failed to file a supporting record with her petition, nor did she certify that she has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(j), 52.7(a). We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See id. 2. 1 jurisdiction of the suit, on the timely motion of a party other than the petitioner, the

court shall transfer the proceeding to the county where venue is proper.”); §

155.202(b) (“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of

justice, the court, on the timely motion of a party, may transfer the proceeding to a

proper court in another county in the state.”). Poff argues no party resides in Liberty

County, the Real Party in Interest, William Harvey Poff, has resided in San Jacinto

County for less than six months, and at least six of the witnesses Poff intends to call

in the next hearing reside in Montgomery County.

To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has

abused its discretion and that she has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential

Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); Walker v.

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not

shown that the trial court abused its discretion. Accordingly, we deny mandamus

relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 27, 2025 Opinion Delivered August 28, 2025

Before Golemon, C.J., Wright and Chambers, JJ.