See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 52. 8( d) ( “ W hen gr ant i ng r el i ef , t he c our t m us t han d do w n an opi ni on a s 1 i n a n y o th e r c a s e .”) ; see a lso T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 4 7 .4 (d i s ti n g u i s h i n g o p i n i o n s a n d m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n s ). 

### NU M BER 13- 10- 0011 7-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS CORPUS CHRI ST I - E DI NBURG
I N R E O F F I C E O F T H E AT T O R N E YG E N E RAL
On Petit ion fo r Writ of M an da mus . M EM ORA ND UM OPIN ION Be fo re C hie f J us tice Vald ez an d Ju stice s B en av ide s a nd Ve la M emo rand um Opin ion b y C hie f J us tice Vald ez 1 Rel ator , t he Office of the At tor ney Gene ra l of the St ate o f Texa s ( “O AG” ), fil ed a peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus se eki ng to compel the tr ial courtto v acat e an order ca ncel li ng a c hil d s uppor

t l ien on t he bank

ac countof the re a l p a rt y in i nterest , Ad olfo Ib ar ra . The OAG con ten ds tha t the issuance of the order v iolate d its rig ht to due process be cause it
w as rend ered w ithou t not ice or a hea ring. T he OA G f urthe r conten ds tha tt h e t rial court2

abu sed its discretio n be cause it canno t cance l a child supp ort lien w hile the arrearage is in dis pute, and there i s n o adeq uate re medy by appeal

. The Co urt req uest ed a re spons e from t he real par ty i n i ntere st a n d recei v ed a “Notice of

Non-Opp osition to Relato r’s Petition for W rit of Mand am us.” Accordin g to th is “N oti ce, ” Ibar ra does not b eli ev e tha t t he pet it ion for w ri t of mandamus i s mer it or iou s, but “d oes not w is h to cont estsa id matter, and is not oppos ed to the is suanc e of the w ri t, provided the costs of app eal and attorne y s fees related to the prose cution of the w rit are
ass ess ed to the par

ti es inc ur ri ng sa me.” W e c ondi ti onal ly g ra nt t he w ri t. I. B A CKGRO UND On Mar ch 26 , 20 0 3 , t h e tri a l co u rtiss u e d a d ivor ce de cre e di ss o lvin g th e m a rria ge bet w een Ibarra an d Alm a Sala z ar. In the d e c re e , t h e trial court specif ied Ib arra’s child supp o rtobl ig ati ons for th eir three c hil dren, i ncl udi ng one chi ld w it h s peci al needs

. On March 23, 200 7, Ibarra f iled his third amen ded pet ition to mo dif y his child s u p port obligation . Th e OAG int erv ene d in the suit and f iled a m otion for enforcem entof the child suppo rtordered i n the di v or ce decree. On or aboutJa nuar

y 7, 2010, th e O AG f iled a not ice of child supp ort lien on Ibarra’s ban k accou nt atan Int erna tiona l Bank of Comm erce in McAl len , Tex as. Thi s l ien froz e al l transacti ons on th e bank ac count

. On J anuar

y 19, 2010, Ibar ra filed an emerg ency moti on to ca ncel the li en, a nd l ater that same day , w it hout noti ce or hear ing , the tri al cour t ent ered an order

ca ncel li ng the li en as “u nauthor iz ed” bec ause there i s a “ bona fide di sput e betwee n t h e p a rt ies as to the amount, if any

[I bar ra ] ow es in chi ld supp ort.” The OAG file d a “ Mo ti on to Vac ate a nd/or for N ew Tri al, ” w hic h w as deni ed foll ow ing a he ar ing

. This or ig ina l proceed ing ens ued.

II. S TA NDA RD F OR M A N D A M U S R ELI EF3

Mandamus is an “ extraordin ar y ” re medy

. In reSw. B ell T el. C o., L.P. , 235 S.W .3d 6 1 9 , 6 2 3 ( Tex . 200 7) ( or ig . proceed ing ); see In r e T eamR ock

et, L.P. , 2 5 6 S

. W

. 3 d 257, 259 (Tex. 2008 ) (orig

. proce edin g)

. In order to obt ain m and am us relief , the relator mu st show thatthe tr ial co urt c lea rl y abus ed i ts dis creti on and there i s n o adeq uate re medy by app eal. In re Pru de n t ia l In s . Co

. o f

A m. , 1 4 8 S. W .3 d 12 4 , 1 3 5 -3 6 (T e x. 20 0 4 ) (o rig. p ro ce e d in g) (cit in g W

alk er v. Packer

, 827 S.W .2d 833 , 840 (Te x . 199 2) (orig . procee ding)); see In re McAllen Med. Ctr., Inc. , 275 S.W .3d 458, 46 2 ( Tex . 200 8) ( or ig . proceed ing ). A tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on if itreache s a dec is ion so ar bit ra ry and unreason abl e as to
cons ti tute a c le a r and preju dic ial er ro r of law , or i f it cl ear ly

fail s t o c or re ctl y

anal yz e or appl y the law

. In re Cer

ber us Cap it al Mg m t., L.P

. , 1 6 4 S .W .3 d 3 7 9 , 3 8 2 (T e x. 20 0 5 ) (o rig. proceed ing ) (p er

cu ri am); W

alk er , 827 S.W .2d a t 839

. To sat is fy the c lea r abuse of d is c re t io n st a n d a rd , t h e re la t o r m u s tsh o w th a tt h e t r ia l c o u rtco u ld “r e a s o n a b ly h a ve reach ed only on e decision .” Libe rty Nat'l Fi re Ins. Co. v. Akin , 9 2 7 S

. W

. 2 d 6 2 7 , 6 3 0 (T e x. 1 9 9 6 ) (qu o ti n g W

alk er , 827 S.W .2d a t 840 ). W h e t h e r a c l e a r a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n c a n b e a d e q u a t e l y re me d i e d b y

a ppeal depends on a ca re ful anal y si s o f the c ost s a nd bene fits of inte rl ocut or y rev iew

. In re Mc Al len Me d. C tr

., Inc ., 275 S.W .3d at 462. “A n appell ate remedy is ‘adeq uate’ w hen any ben ef its to ma nda mu s rev iew are outw eighed by the det rimen ts.” In r e Pr udenti al Ins . C o. o f A m. , 148 S.W .3d a t 136

. Acc ordin g to the Tex as Supreme C our t: Ma ndamus re v iew of sig nific ant r uli ng s i n ex cept ion al cas es maybe ess enti al to pres er

v e i mport ant s ubst anti v e and procedu ra l ri g hts from impai rmentor

lo ss , a llow

the appel lat e c our

ts to g iv e neede d and hel pful direct ion to the l aw

thatw oul d oth er

w is e prov e el usi v e i n appeals from final jud g ments, and spare pr iv ate p arti es and t he publ icthe ti me and mone y4

utter ly w ast ed endu ri ng ev entual reve rs al of improper ly co nduct ed proceed ing s. Id. III . A N AL Y S IS At is sue herein i s s ect ion 157. 312( d) of the Tex as Fami ly C ode w hic h s tates that : A c hil d s uppor

t l ien ar is es by

operati on of l aw

ag ain st re al and personal p ro p e rt y of

an ob ligo r

f o r a ll a m o u n ts of

ch ild su p p o rtdu e an d owin g, inc lud ing any

ac c r u e d i nterest , reg ardle ss of w hether the amounts hav e been adju dicate d or oth erw ise det er min ed, subjectto the requirem ent s of this subs ect ion for p er

fecti on of the li en. T EX . F AM . C OD E A NN . § 157.312 (d ) (V er non 2008)

. This sec ti on ex press ly prov ide s t hat a lien ma y arise “regardless of

w het her the amo unt s have been adjud ic ate d or oth erw ise deter mined, ” as lon g as the s tatut or y req uirements for p er

fecti on of the li en hav e been met. Id. Section 157 .31 6(a) deline ate s the requirem ent s for perfection of a lien, an d provides, in relevant part, th at “a child sup port lien is perf ecte d w hen an abst ract of judgmen t for past due c hil d s uppor

t or a c hil d s uppor

t l ien noti ce is fil ed or

del iv ered as prov ide d by se cti on 157 .31 4.” Id. § 157.316 (a ) (V er non 200 8)

. Sect ion 157. 314, in tur n, cont ain s p ro v is ion s for fi l i ng c hi l d s up po rt l i en n ot i c es a nd p rov i di ng a c op y o f t he n ot i c e to t he o bl igor. Se e gener all y i d. § 157 .31 4 (Verno n 200 8). “Th e plain language of these section s indicate s a li e n arises w ithou t action bya court, as lon g as the notice comp lies w ith the statu tory requireme nts.” Herzfeld v. Herzfeld , 285 S.W .3d 1 22, 1 28 ( Tex . Ap p.–D all as 2009, no pet .). The OAG co ntends i n i ts peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus t hat t he order v acat ing i ts li en
v iol ated it s d ue proces s ri g hts ; t he famil y co de g iv es the O AG t he ex press auth or ity to attac h a c hil d s uppor

t l ien on I bar ra ’s bank

account ; the amount of chil d s uppor

t ar re arag es5

nee d notb e adju dicate d or judiciallydete rmine d prior to the atta chm entof the lien; a child suppo rtl ien ca n att ach w hether or not the ar re arag e amounts are dis puted; and the O AG lac ks an a deq uate r e medy by appeal g iv en th e nat ure of the order herein and the f und am ent al rig hts of

the children to suppo rt. As state d previously , the real party in interest herein i s n ot op posed to is suanc e of t he w ri t of mandamus i n thi s mat ter and has prov ide d
no arg ument or

auth or ity

on t he foreg oin g i ss ues. Based on our rev iew of the record and the u ndi sput ed facts co ntai ned t herein , the arg ument and authori ti es pro v ide d by the OAG, and the ex press terms of the famil y code, t he OA G has met i ts burden t o s how enti tl ement to extraordina ry relief

. Accordin gly , base d on the spe cif ic fa ctua l and pro cedu ral postu re of this case, we condition ally g rant th e pe tition for w rit of man dam us. VI. C ONCL US I ON The Co urt, hav ing ex amined and fully cons ide re d the peti ti on for w ri t of mandamus and the “Notice of

No n-Opp osition ” th ereto , is o f t he opin ion tha t relato r ha s sh own i tself enti tl ed to the re li ef s oug ht. Acc ordin g ly , w e LIF T our st ay order of Ma rc h 15, 2010, and CO ND ITION ALLY

GRAN T rel ator ’s peti ti on for w ri t of m andamus. W e are c onfident that the trial court w ill v acat e its order can celling the lien. T he wr it w ill issue only if t he trial court fails to compl y

w it h thi s o pin ion

. ROGEL IO VAL DEZ, Chief Justice Del iv er ed and filed the 5th d ay of Ma y , 201 0.