in Re: Robert Houser

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedAugust 1, 2006
Docket06-06-00083-CV
StatusPublished

This text of in Re: Robert Houser (in Re: Robert Houser) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
in Re: Robert Houser, (Tex. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

6-96-028-CV Long Trusts v. Dowd


In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana


______________________________


No. 06-06-00083-CV



IN RE: ROBERT HOUSER





                                                                                                                                                             

Original Mandamus Proceeding






                                                                                                                                                                                        



Before Morriss, C.J., Ross and Carter, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter



MEMORANDUM OPINION


            Robert Houser has filed a petition for writ of mandamus asking this Court to order the district court to "move upon the case" in his divorce filed against Jeri Houser. Robert Houser is presently incarcerated in the Telford Unit in New Boston, Texas, and is attempting to divorce his wife, who is evidently a resident of Louisiana. He states that she refused to waive service, and asks this Court to order the trial court to grant his petition for divorce since he has used every effort to obtain service on her.

            Mandamus issues only when the mandamus record establishes (1) a clear abuse of discretion or the violation of a duty imposed by law and (2) the absence of a clear and adequate remedy at law. Cantu v. Longoria, 878 S.W.2d 131 (Tex. 1994); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992).

            Houser argues that, since he has followed all court rules concerning service, he is entitled to have his petition placed on the court docket for processing, and asks us to order the trial court to do so. There are a number of rules that explain how service must be made on a defendant. In Houser's case, he states only that he attempted to contact his wife by mail and that his wife refused to respond to his request for waiver. In all cases, service or waiver must be obtained in order for the suit to proceed.

            Houser is thus required to attempt to obtain actual service on Jeri as set out in Tex. R. Civ. P. 106, by a person authorized pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 103. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d 298, 298–99 (Tex. 1993). There is no indication that Houser has made any effort to obtain service on his wife. His petition states only that he could not obtain a waiver of service.

            The trial court's jurisdiction is invoked by the party's appearance before the court, or by the lawful service of process on the party. TAC Am., Inc. v. Boothe, 94 S.W.3d 315, 318–19 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.); see also Tex. R. Civ. P. 120, 124; Bird v. Kornman, 152 S.W.3d 154, 160 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2004, pet. denied). The trial court has acted within the bounds of the applicable law, and no abuse of discretion has been shown.

            We deny the petition.

 


                                                                        Jack Carter

                                                                        Justice

Date Submitted:          July 31, 2006

Date Decided:             August 1, 2006

LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>

In The

  Court of Appeals

                        Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

                                                ______________________________

                                                             No. 06-10-00087-CV

                                                ______________________________

                IN THE INTEREST OF H.G., C.G., AND F.G., CHILDREN

                                                                                                  

                                       On Appeal from the 62nd Judicial District Court

                                                           Hopkins County, Texas

                                                          Trial Court No. CV39152

                                                                                                   

                                         

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bird v. Kornman
152 S.W.3d 154 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2005)
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. Costley
868 S.W.2d 298 (Texas Supreme Court, 1993)
TAC Americas, Inc. v. Boothe
94 S.W.3d 315 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
Cantu v. Longoria
878 S.W.2d 131 (Texas Supreme Court, 1994)
Walker v. Packer
827 S.W.2d 833 (Texas Supreme Court, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
in Re: Robert Houser, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-robert-houser-texapp-2006.