In Re Rejeana Leatherwood v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 13-25-00362-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

NUMBER 13-25-00362-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE REJEANA LEATHERWOOD

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Tijerina and Justices West and Fonseca Memorandum Opinion by Justice West 1

This original proceeding arises from an estate dispute. Relator Rejeana

Leatherwood has filed a second amended pro se petition for writ of mandamus through

which she asserts that the trial court lacks jurisdiction; the trial court erred in granting

spousal status to Irma Ramirez; the trial court unlawfully permitted foreclosure; the

dependent administrator of the decedent’s estate breached his fiduciary duty; the judge

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions). of the trial court should be recused; and the trial court erred by failing to appoint relator

as a successor administrator. Relator seeks emergency relief to stay foreclosure

proceedings.

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only when the trial court

clearly abused its discretion and the party seeking relief lacks an adequate remedy on

appeal. In re Ill. Nat’l Ins., 685 S.W.3d 826, 834 (Tex. 2024) (orig. proceeding).

Alternatively, when “a trial court issues an order ‘beyond its jurisdiction,’ mandamus relief

is appropriate because such an order is void ab initio.” In re Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d

536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35

S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding)). In such circumstances, the relator need

not show it lacks an adequate appellate remedy. See In re Vaishangi, Inc., 442 S.W.3d

256, 261 (Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d

at 605.

The Court, having examined and fully considered the second amended petition for

writ of mandamus, the record, and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not

met her burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus

and the request for emergency relief.

JON WEST Justice

Delivered and filed on the 22nd day of July, 2025.