DENIED and Opinion Filed September 27, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-23-00924-CV 

IN RE KAREN VANDERLIGHT, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 417th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 417-53321-2021 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Smith, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Kennedy 

The suit underlying this original proceeding is a divorce proceeding wherein 

the trial court signed a final decree of divorce on July 10, 2023. On September 20, 

2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus wherein she challenges the trial 

court’s July 10, 2023 Order for Appointment of Receiver (the Receivership Order) 

and the trial court’s purported oral ruling at a September 14, 2023 hearing for relator 

to vacate the marital residence by September 28, 2023. 

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 
 –2– 

proceeding). A trial court, however, abuses its discretion when it issues a void order, 

and a relator need not show that it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal from a void 

order. In re PJD Law Firm, PLLC, No. 05-23-00012-CV, 2023 WL 2887616, at *2 

(Tex. App.—Dallas April 11, 2023, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Relator bears the 

burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show she is entitled to relief. 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). 

We conclude that relator failed to meet her burden to provide the Court with 

a sufficient record for at least four reasons. First, we may issue a writ of mandamus 

based on a court’s oral pronouncements only if the trial court’s ruling is a clear, 

specific, and enforceable order that is adequately shown by the record. In re Penney, 

No. 05–14–00503–CV, 2014 WL 2532307, at * 2, n.3 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 4, 

2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). We can determine whether an oral order meets 

these criteria by reviewing the reporter’s record from the hearing. Id.; see also In re 

Winters, No. 05–08–01486–CV, 2008 WL 5177835, at *1, n. 1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Dec. 11, 2008, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Here, there is no written order in the 

record requiring relator to vacate the marital residence by September 28, 2023, and 

relator has not provided a reporter’s record of the September 14, 2023 hearing at 

which the oral ruling was purportedly made. Under these circumstances, the record 

is insufficient for mandamus review. See In re Cokinos, No. 05–16–01331–CV, 

2016 WL 7163968, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Nov. 16, 2016, orig. proceeding) 

(mem. op.). 
 –3– 

Second, relator is required to file with her petition a properly authenticated 

transcript of any relevant testimony from the underlying proceeding. TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.7(a)(2). Relator raises at least one complaint relating to the purported oral ruling 

to vacate that concerns testimony the receiver provided at the September 14, 2023 

hearing. Relator also raises evidentiary complaints relating to the Receivership 

Order based on the evidence presented at the November 2022 trial and July 10, 2023 

hearing. Relator, however, did not provide the Court with a reporter’s record of 

either hearing or of the trial. See id.

Third, relator contends she lacked notice of the purpose of the September 14, 

2023 hearing wherein the trial court purportedly orally ordered her to vacate the 

marital residence. But relator failed to provide the Court with a reporter’s record of 

the prior hearings relating to the receivership on July 10, 2023, and August 3, 2023, 

to enable this Court to review her complaint. 

Fourth, every factual statement in relator’s petition must be supported by 

competent evidence included in the appendix or record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(g), 

(j). Here, however, relator’s request for mandamus relief relies upon several factual 

statements that are not supported by documents in her appendix or record. 

Additionally, “the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate 

request for action by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to act.” 

In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 510 (Tex. 2017) (per curiam). “The extraordinary 

nature of the mandamus remedy and the requirement that a party seeking mandamus 
 –4– 

relief exercise diligence both mandate that arguments not presented to the trial court 

cannot first be considered in an original proceeding seeking mandamus.” In re Floyd, 

No. 05-16-00491-CV, 2016 WL 2353874, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 3, 2016, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); see also In re Rowes, No. 05-14-00606-CV, 2014 WL 

2452723, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas May 30, 2014, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A 

court cannot grant mandamus relief unless the error was raised in the trial court,” 

and “[a] party seeking mandamus must direct the Court to where the argument was 

presented to the trial court.”). Here, the record before us does not demonstrate that 

relator has raised any of her complaints in the trial court. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

Also before the Court are relator’s September 21, 2023 Emergency Motion to 

Stay Eviction Pending Appeal and Emergency Motion to Stay the Sale and 

Receivership of the Marital Residence Pending Appeal. We deny both emergency 

motions as moot. 

Further, the appendix attached to relator’s mandamus contains unredacted 

sensitive data in violation of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 9.9. Such data includes financial account information and the full names, 

birthdates, and home addresses of a minor and of an adult who was minor when the 

underlying suit was filed. See id. 

 
 –5– 

Accordingly, we strike relator’s petition for writ of mandamus, including its 

attached appendix. 

230924F.P05 

/Nancy Kennedy/

NANCY KENNEDY 

JUSTICE