In Re: Veronica Rae Vara v. the State of Texas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: November 22, 2024
• Docket: 08-24-00394-CV
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

IN RE § No. 08-24-00394-CV

VERONICA RAE VARA, § AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

Relator. § IN MANDAMUS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Veronica Rae Vara, was declared a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order

that requires her to obtain permission from the local administrative judge prior to filing new

litigation “relating to marital property provisions of the [parties’] Original Decree of Divorce.”1

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.101. On September 25, 2024, Ms. Vara filed a request

with the local administrative judge seeking permission to file a “Motion for Judgment Nunc Pro

Tunc” to correct “certain drafting errors” in a January 4, 2017 “Order of Default Judgment on

Order to Vacate Void Order and Reinstate Decree of Divorce.” On October 1, 2024, local

administrative judge, the Honorable Annabell Perez of the 41st Judicial District Court, denied

Ms. Vara permission to file the motion. Ms. Vara now petitions this Court to compel Judge Perez

to grant permission to file the motion. Id. § 11.102(f). We deny mandamus relief.

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must generally meet two requirements. First,

she must show that the trial court clearly abused its discretion. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.,

1 TEXAS OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION, ORDER DECLARING VERONICA RAE VARA A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT (June 22, 2023), https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1456705/veronica-vera.pdf. 148 S.W.3d 124, 135 (Tex. 2004). Second, she must demonstrate that she has no adequate remedy

by appeal. Id. at 136.

A judgment nunc pro tunc may be used to correct clerical errors in a judgment after the

trial court has lost its plenary power. See, e.g., Perez v. Perez, 658 S.W.3d 864, 872 (Tex. App.—

El Paso 2022, no pet.); Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(f). “A clerical error is one that does not result from

judicial reasoning or determination.” Perez, 658 S.W.3d at 872. A judgment nunc pro tunc cannot

be used to correct a judicial error. Escobar v. Escobar, 711 S.W.2d 230, 232 (Tex. 1986).

Through her motion, Ms. Vara seeks to materially alter the January 4, 2017 order by

removing a provision reinstating the property division and spousal maintenance from the original

decree of divorce. In the order denying Ms. Vara permission to file the motion, the local

administrative judge found that a nunc pro tunc was inappropriate to correct any alleged error that

would materially alter the substance of the order, i.e., judicial error. Because Ms. Vara’s motion

seeks to materially alter the marital property and spousal maintenance provisions of her divorce

decree—the subject of her vexatious litigant prefiling order—we cannot conclude that Judge Perez

abused her discretion when she denied Ms. Vara’s request for permission by finding that the

motion lacked merit. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 11.102(d)(1) (authorizing a local

administrative judge to grant permission to a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order only if

it appears that the litigation has merit). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

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

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

November 22, 2024

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, J.J.