Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November 

29, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-01070-CV

IN RE VAN WILLIAM DITTMER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

309th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2003-03735

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On November 27, 2012, relator Van William Dittmer filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. 

In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Sheri Y. Dean, presiding 

judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County, to vacate a turnover order signed 

November 13, 2012. 

Dean Blumrosen, the real party in interest, represented relator’s wife in their 

divorce. On April 4, 2003, the court awarded Blumrosen $10,000 in attorney’s fees. On 
2

September 30, 2003, Blumrosen filed a plea in intervention to enforce the judgment for 

attorney’s fees. On February 5, 2004, the trial court signed a judgment in favor of 

Blumrosen for $10,000 plus post-judgment interest.

On January 26, 2012, Blumrosen sent a letter to relator demanding $21,435.89 

plus $210 in court costs in satisfaction of the February 2004 judgment. Blumrosen stated 

that if payment were not made within 10 days, he would commence post-judgment 

discovery. On February 16, 2012, Blumrosen served written discovery on relator. 

Blumrosen subsequently filed a motion to compel because relator did not respond to 

discovery. A hearing on the motion to compel was set for November 13, 2012. On 

November 6, 2012, relator filed an original petition for bill of review alleging Blumrosen 

does not have standing to seek enforcement of the 2004 order, and relator was not 

properly served with the plea. Relator claims the underlying judgment is void because of 

the lack of standing. Also on November 6, 2012, relator filed a motion for protective 

order in which he alleged that he filed a bill of review seeking to set aside the 2004 

judgment for attorney’s fees and protection from post-judgment discovery. 

On November 13, 2012, the trial court signed an order requiring relator to, on or 

before 3:00 on November 29, 2012, deliver a cashier’s check, payable to Blumrosen in 

the amount of $23,253.58. Relator complains of this order in his petition for writ of 

mandamus and requests emergency relief in the form of a stay of the court’s order. 

Mandamus relief is appropriate only if a trial court abuses its discretion and no 

adequate appellate remedy exists. In re CSX Corp., 124 S.W.3d 149, 151 (Tex. 2003). 

A turnover order is a final, appealable order and mandamus relief is ordinarily not 

available. Burns v. Miller, Hiersche, Martens & Hayward, P.C., 909 S.W.2d 505, 506 

(Tex. 1995). Mandamus relief is appropriate in some circumstances, but those 

circumstances are not presented by this case. See, e.g., In re Hamel, No. 04-05-00359-
3

CV, 2005 WL 2216584, at *2 (Tex. App.—San Antonio September 14, 2005, orig. 

proceeding) (holding mandamus appropriate when turnover order was based on judgment 

previously declared void by appellate court); In re Alsenz, 152 S.W.3d 617, 621 (Tex.

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding) (holding mandamus appropriate 

when trial court ordered supersedeas bond turned over to nonparties and relator’s 

compliance with order would have extinguished his right to appeal); Plaza Court, Ltd. v. 

West, 879 S.W.2d 271, 275 (Tex. App.—Houston [14 Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding) 

(holding mandamus appropriate remedy when turnover order directed nonparty 

corporation to turn over assets to receiver in satisfaction of judgment against 

corporation’s shareholder).

In his petition, relator alleges the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the 

payment of the judgment without notice and hearing as required by Texas Civil Practice 

and Remedies Code section 31.002. Although relator claims the underlying judgment is 

void, it has not been previously been declared void, and relator’s right to appeal will not 

be forfeited if he pays the funds. Relator filed a notice of appeal from the same order on 

the same day he filed his petition for writ of mandamus.

Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal and has not established entitlement to 

the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition 

for writ of mandamus and also deny relator’s related emergency motion to stay the trial 

court’s order.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Seymore, Boyce, and Jamison.