In Re Michael Wayne Lowman v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 28, 2025
• Docket: 09-25-00288-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-25-00288-CV __________________

IN RE MICHAEL WAYNE LOWMAN

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 410th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 23-07-10524 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Michael Wayne Lowman filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to

compel the trial court to conduct a de novo hearing on Lowman’s Motion to Vacate

Receivership. In a related mandamus proceeding, In re Lowman, No. 09-25-00153-

CV, the Real Party on Interest, Samantha Lowman, notified the Court that on July

28, 2025, the trial court held a de novo hearing on the Motion to Vacate

Receivership. On August 8, 2025, we asked the parties whether the mandamus

proceeding has been mooted by the trial court’s July 30, 2025 Order Denying Motion

to Vacate Appointment of Receivership after De Novo Hearing and on the July 30,

1 2025 Order Denying Motion to Terminate or Dissolve Receivership after De Novo

Hearing.

Lowman filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Mandamus. He explains that

he was surprised by the trial court’s decision to grant his motion to reconsider and

was unprepared for the de novo hearing. He asks this Court to order the trial court

to hold another de novo hearing.

We may issue a writ of mandamus to remedy a clear abuse of discretion by

the trial court when the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. See 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). We

conclude the Relator has not shown that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.

Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P.

52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

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

Before Johnson, Wright and Chambers, JJ.