In Re Shelton Energy Solutions, LLC v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: August 17, 2023
• Docket: 09-23-00144-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00144-CV __________________

IN RE SHELTON ENERGY SOLUTIONS, LLC

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding 411th District Court of Polk County, Texas Trial Cause No. CIV-22-0356 __________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding, Relator, Shelton Energy Solutions, LLC

(“Relator” or “Shelton Energy”), seeks to compel the trial court presiding in a

personal injury suit to vacate its March 29, 2023 orders denying Shelton Energy’s

motions to show authority, to join necessary parties, and to abate the lawsuit. We

obtained a response from the real parties in interest, Asia Cole, Ciara Cole, Rance

Cole III, and Jade Cole (“the Coles” or the “plaintiffs”). We deny mandamus relief.

Rance Cole died on May 7, 2022, as a result of injuries he sustained in a motor

vehicle accident. Four of Cole’s children sued Seth Marceaux and his employer,

Shelton Energy. The Coles alleged they are Rance Cole’s statutory beneficiaries and

1 heirs at law of his estate and they sued on behalf of any other wrongful death

beneficiaries and heirs at law of the estate. Rance Cole’s wife, Anissa Haynes,

intervened, seeking wrongful death and survival damages.

Shelton Energy filed a motion to show authority, a motion to join necessary

parties, and a motion to abate the lawsuit until the plaintiffs showed they have

authority to pursue the suit on behalf of the Decedent or the Estate and the personal

representative of the Estate has been joined as a necessary party. In response, the

Coles urged the trial court to make findings related to heirship without sending the

case to a probate court for an heirship proceeding or the appointment of an

administrator. The Coles supported their response with an affidavit of family history

from each of the Coles, Rance Cole’s former wife, and the former wife’s motion.

The Coles also supported their motion with an affidavit from Anissa Haynes

regarding the Decedent’s family history and paid funeral expenses. Shelton Energy

objected to the affidavits, which it argued proved nothing because they merely stated

that the affiant did not know of any other heirs and they had paid certain debts. The

trial court overruled Shelton Energy’s objections to the affidavits and denied all three

motions.

Shelton Energy filed this mandamus petition to compel the trial court to vacate

its orders and grant Shelton Energy’s motions. Shelton Energy complains the Coles

presented no evidence that they are the only heirs to the Decedent’s Estate and no

2 evidence that an administration is not necessary. It argues the purported family

settlement agreement signed by the Coles and Anissa Haynes does not obviate the

need for an administration of the Estate because it fails to include all heirs of the

Decedent, known and unknown.

The Coles filed a response that argued in part that this original proceeding is

moot because an application to declare heirship has been filed in the County Court

at Law of Polk County, Texas.

In reply, Shelton Energy complains that the Coles did not notify Shelton

Energy of the pending heirship proceeding. It asks this Court to abate all trial court

proceedings until the probate court declares all heirs and appoints a permanent

administrator for the estate.

We may grant mandamus relief to correct a trial court’s abuse of discretion

when an appeal provides an inadequate remedy. 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). An abuse of discretion occurs

when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made without regard

for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am.,

494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding). We determine the adequacy of

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

3 detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 (Tex. 2014) (orig.

proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136.

After considering the parties’ arguments, the mandamus record, in light of the

commencement of proceedings in the probate court, and balancing the benefits of

mandamus review against the detriments, we conclude Relator has not established

that the trial court’s orders constitute an abuse of discretion from which there is no

adequate remedy by appeal. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus without

prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 6, 2023 Opinion Delivered August 17, 2023

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