In Re Scott Mitchell Obeginski v. the State of Texas

• Court: Texas Court of Appeals, 9th District (Beaumont)
• Decided: February 19, 2026
• Docket: 09-26-00071-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-26-00071-CV __________________

IN RE SCOTT MITCHELL OBEGINSKI

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No. 24-11-18234 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On January 9, 2026, the trial court granted a motion for sanctions and ordered

Relator Scott Mitchell Obeginski to pay $10,705 as reimbursement for attorney’s

fees incurred because of sanctionable conduct arising out of Obeginski’s alleged

continued use of fictitious law and his filing of a baseless Motion to Show Authority,

ordered Obeginski to pay the Montgomery County District Clerk all fees presently

due and owing “since he admitted in open court and on the record that he is not

indigent,” and ordered Obeginski to appear for a hearing on February 19, 2026, to

1 prove his payment of the sanction amount and the fees to the District Clerk.1 In a

petition for a writ of mandamus, Obeginski seeks to compel the trial court to vacate

its order of January 9, 2026, which he argues is void because (1) the trial court acted

as a fact witness in violation of Texas Rule of Evidence 605, (2) the sanctions order

imposed relief that was not requested in the motion for sanctions and was imposed

without prior notice to Obeginski, (3) no sworn testimony or competent evidence

supported the sanctions imposed by the trial court, and (4) Obeginski lacks an

adequate remedy by appeal because the trial court scheduled a compliance hearing

that will occur before Obeginski’s appeal can be resolved.2

1 The trial court disposed of several motions in its Order of January 9, 2026. The additional rulings not at issue in this mandamus proceeding include the denial of Obeginski’s Motion to Show Authority, the denial of Obeginski’s Motion for New Trial, the denial of Joshua Want Real Estate Group, LLC’s Motion for Sanctions for filing a tertiary motion to recuse, and an order “that when Scott Obeginski makes any filing of any plea, pleading, motion, brief, or similar regardless of the capacity in which he makes the filing shall include with each filing with any and all Court(s) or Clerk(s) as attachments a copy of any and all legal authorities cited in the filing highlighting the portion of the legal authority attached which supports the proposition for which he cites the legal authority.” These matters are or may be presented as issues in an appeal and in another mandamus proceeding presently before this Court as Number 09-25-00487-CV, Obeginski v. Codilis & Moody, P.C. or Number 09-26-00057-CV, In re Scott Mitchell Obeginski. We express no opinion herein regarding matters that are not before us in this mandamus proceeding. 2 Obeginski added a complaint that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to rule on the merits of his Rule 12 motion in a supplemental mandamus petition. He offers no explanation for his failure to include the argument in his original petition. This complaint may be adequately addressed on appeal. 2 Obeginski claims the trial court acted as a fact witness and ruled on the motion

for sanctions without taking any other evidence. We disagree with Obeginski’s

characterization of the proceedings. His filings were already before the trial court,

and the trial court considered his filings and the opposing party’s motion for

sanctions in its judicial function of evaluating the legal arguments supporting the

parties’ motions. Contrary to his assertion that he was not on notice that an order

granting the motion for sanctions might do more than award attorney’s fees, the

motion for sanctions asked for an award of attorney’s fees and “such other and

further relief to which Intervenor may show itself to be justly entitled.”

Contrary to Obeginski’s arguments to this Court, the trial court did take

evidence at the hearing. Obeginski declined to be sworn and to provide testimony.

He also withdrew his motion to set a supersedeas bond and declined to testify about

his net worth. Opposing counsel was sworn as a witness, testified regarding

attorney’s fees, proffered a supporting exhibit that was admitted without objection,

and submitted to cross-examination by Obeginski. The trial court questioned the

attorney further regarding the amount of time employees of the firm spent

researching the authorities Obeginski cited in his post-judgment motions. Obeginski

affirmatively stated he had no objection when the trial court requested supplemental

evidence specific to addressing Obeginski’s post-judgment motions.

3 Obeginski contends mandamus relief is required because the trial court has

scheduled a compliance hearing for February 19, 2026, and the hearing exposes him

to possible contempt and further sanctions. “If the imposition of monetary sanctions

threatens a party’s continuation of the litigation, appeal affords an adequate remedy

only if payment of the sanctions is deferred until final judgment is rendered and the

party has the opportunity to supersede the judgment and perfect his appeal.” Braden

v. Downey, 811 S.W.2d 922, 929 (Tex. 1991) (orig. proceeding). Here, however, the

trial court has signed a final judgment, and Obeginski has not shown that he lacks

an opportunity to supersede the judgment.

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). “A trial

court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and

unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.” Walker, 827

S.W.2d at 839 (internal quotations omitted). A trial court also abuses its discretion

if it fails to correctly analyze or apply the law, because a trial court has no discretion

in determining what the law is or in applying the law to the facts. See In re

Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 135; Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840. We determine the

adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of mandamus review

4 against the detriments, considering whether extending mandamus relief will preserve

important substantive and procedural rights from impairment or loss. In re Team

Rocket, L.P., 256 S.W.3d 257, 262 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding).

After reviewing the mandamus record and appendix, we conclude

Obeginski’s argument that the trial court issued a void order is not supported by the

record before us. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. See

Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). Any requests for interim relief are denied.

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on February 17, 2026 Opinion Delivered February 18, 2026

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