In Re: Karen VanderLight v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: September 27, 2023
• Docket: 05-23-00924-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

DENIED and Opinion Filed September 27, 2023

S In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00924-CV

IN RE KAREN VANDERLIGHT, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 417-53321-2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Kennedy The suit underlying this original proceeding is a divorce proceeding wherein

the trial court signed a final decree of divorce on July 10, 2023. On September 20,

2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus wherein she challenges the trial

court’s July 10, 2023 Order for Appointment of Receiver (the Receivership Order)

and the trial court’s purported oral ruling at a September 14, 2023 hearing for relator

to vacate the marital residence by September 28, 2023.

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). A trial court, however, abuses its discretion when it issues a void order,

and a relator need not show that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal from a void

order. In re PJD Law Firm, PLLC, No. 05-23-00012-CV, 2023 WL 2887616, at *2

(Tex. App.—Dallas April 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator bears the

burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show she is entitled to relief.

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

We conclude that relator failed to meet her burden to provide the Court with

a sufficient record for at least four reasons. First, we may issue a writ of mandamus

based on a court’s oral pronouncements only if the trial court’s ruling is a clear,

specific, and enforceable order that is adequately shown by the record. In re Penney,

No. 05–14–00503–CV, 2014 WL 2532307, at * 2, n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4,

2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We can determine whether an oral order meets

these criteria by reviewing the reporter’s record from the hearing. Id.; see also In re

Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835, at *1, n. 1 (Tex. App.—Dallas

Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Here, there is no written order in the

record requiring relator to vacate the marital residence by September 28, 2023, and

relator has not provided a reporter’s record of the September 14, 2023 hearing at

which the oral ruling was purportedly made. Under these circumstances, the record

is insufficient for mandamus review. See In re Cokinos, No. 05–16–01331–CV,

2016 WL 7163968, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2016, orig. proceeding)

(mem. op.).

–2– Second, relator is required to file with her petition a properly authenticated

transcript of any relevant testimony from the underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P.

52.7(a)(2). Relator raises at least one complaint relating to the purported oral ruling

to vacate that concerns testimony the receiver provided at the September 14, 2023

hearing. Relator also raises evidentiary complaints relating to the Receivership

Order based on the evidence presented at the November 2022 trial and July 10, 2023

hearing. Relator, however, did not provide the Court with a reporter’s record of

either hearing or of the trial. See id.

Third, relator contends she lacked notice of the purpose of the September 14,

2023 hearing wherein the trial court purportedly orally ordered her to vacate the

marital residence. But relator failed to provide the Court with a reporter’s record of

the prior hearings relating to the receivership on July 10, 2023, and August 3, 2023,

to enable this Court to review her complaint.

Fourth, every factual statement in relator’s petition must be supported by

competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g),

(j). Here, however, relator’s request for mandamus relief relies upon several factual

statements that are not supported by documents in her appendix or record.

Additionally, “the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate

request for action by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to act.”

In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam). “The extraordinary

nature of the mandamus remedy and the requirement that a party seeking mandamus

–3– relief exercise diligence both mandate that arguments not presented to the trial court

cannot first be considered in an original proceeding seeking mandamus.” In re Floyd,

No. 05-16-00491-CV, 2016 WL 2353874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016,

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Rowes, No. 05-14-00606-CV, 2014 WL

2452723, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 30, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A

court cannot grant mandamus relief unless the error was raised in the trial court,”

and “[a] party seeking mandamus must direct the Court to where the argument was

presented to the trial court.”). Here, the record before us does not demonstrate that

relator has raised any of her complaints in the trial court.

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Also before the Court are relator’s September 21, 2023 Emergency Motion to

Stay Eviction Pending Appeal and Emergency Motion to Stay the Sale and

Receivership of the Marital Residence Pending Appeal. We deny both emergency

motions as moot.

Further, the appendix attached to relator’s mandamus contains unredacted

sensitive data in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.9. Such data includes financial account information and the full names,

birthdates, and home addresses of a minor and of an adult who was minor when the

underlying suit was filed. See id.

–4– Accordingly, we strike relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, including its

attached appendix.

/Nancy Kennedy/ NANCY KENNEDY JUSTICE

230924F.P05

–5–